Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 New York opinions name it 4 courts 1987–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Carrasquillogreen2 sentences2025With the newly alleged facts, the People have established probable cause to believe that the defendant possessed a firearm in violation of PL § 256.03 (3) ( see CPL 70.10 [2] [probable cause exists when evidence is "of such weight and persuasiveness as to convince a person of ordinary intelligence, judgment and experience that it is reasonably likely that such offense was committed and that such person committed it"]; see also People v Carrasquillo , 54 NY2d 248, 254 [1981] ["reasonably likely" [*2]means "at least more probable than not"]). 2025First, the People have established probable cause to believe that the defendant possessed a firearm in violation of PL § 256.03 (3) ( see CPL 70.10 [2] [probable cause exists when evidence is "of such weight and persuasiveness as to convince a person of ordinary intelligence, judgment and experience that it is reasonably likely that such offense was committed and that such person committed it"]; see also People v Carrasquillo , 54 NY2d 248, 254 [1981] ["reasonably likely" means "at least more probable than not"]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Dicksongreen2 sentences2012Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant (see People v Steele, 26 NY2d 526, 529 [1970]), there was no reasonable view of the evidence under which such a charge was warranted (see People v Dickson, 58 AD3d 1016, 1017-1018 [2009]). 2012Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant (see People v Steele, 26 NY2d 526, 529 [1970]), there was no reasonable view of the evidence under which such a charge was warranted (see People v Dickson, 58 AD3d 1016, 1017-1018 [2009]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Steelegreen2 sentences2012Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant (see People v Steele, 26 NY2d 526, 529 [1970]), there was no reasonable view of the evidence under which such a charge was warranted (see People v Dickson, 58 AD3d 1016, 1017-1018 [2009]). 2012Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant (see People v Steele, 26 NY2d 526, 529 [1970]), there was no reasonable view of the evidence under which such a charge was warranted (see People v Dickson, 58 AD3d 1016, 1017-1018 [2009]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Moralesgreen2 sentences2025Here, a police officer recovered a loaded firearm from a backpack that the defendant was wearing, which is sufficient to establish probable cause that the defendant possessed the firearm ( see In re Anthony B. , 268 AD2d 265, 266 [1st Dept 2000], People v Morales , 243 AD2d 391, 392 [1st Dept 1997]). 2025Here, a police officer recovered a loaded firearm from a backpack that the defendant was wearing, which is sufficient to establish probable cause that the defendant possessed the firearm ( see In re Anthony B. , 268 AD2d 265 , 266 [1st Dept 2000], People v Morales , 243 AD2d 391, 392 [1st Dept 1997]). | 1 | 1 |
In re Anthony B.green2 sentences2025Here, a police officer recovered a loaded firearm from a backpack that the defendant was wearing, which is sufficient to establish probable cause that the defendant possessed the firearm ( see In re Anthony B. , 268 AD2d 265, 266 [1st Dept 2000], People v Morales , 243 AD2d 391, 392 [1st Dept 1997]). 2025Here, a police officer recovered a loaded firearm from a backpack that the defendant was wearing, which is sufficient to establish probable cause that the defendant possessed the firearm ( see In re Anthony B. , 268 AD2d 265 , 266 [1st Dept 2000], People v Morales , 243 AD2d 391, 392 [1st Dept 1997]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. DaGatagreen1 sentence2008Furthermore, the scientific evidence requested by defendant could have been used “to determine whether further inquiry would possibly lead to information favorable to defendant’s case” (People v DaGata, 86 NY2d 40, 45 [1995]). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Baskerville
green
2 sentences1989The court held: "While the display of 'what appears to be’ a firearm test requires a 'display [of] something that could reasonably be perceived as a firearm’ (People v Baskerville, 60 NY2d 374, 381 ), there is no requirement that the object need be anything other than the defendant’s hand” ( 135 AD2d 443, 443-444 ). 1987While the display of "what appears to be” a firearm test requires a "display [of] something that could reasonably be perceived as a firearm” (People v Baskerville, 60 NY2d 374, 381 ), there is no requirement that the object need be anything other than the defendant’s hand. | 2 | 1987–1989 |
People v. Cabassa
neutral
2 sentences2023Upon the defendant's prior appeal, this Court vacated the defendant's adjudication as a second felony offender on the ground that his prior federal conviction of unlawful possession of a firearm in violation of 18 USC § 922 (g)(1) did not constitute a felony in New York for the purpose of enhanced sentencing ( see People v Cabassa , 188 AD3d 716, 717-718 ), and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for resentencing ( see id. ). 2023Upon the defendant's prior appeal, this Court vacated the defendant's adjudication as a second felony offender on the ground that his prior federal conviction of unlawful possession of a firearm in violation of 18 USC § 922 (g)(1) did not constitute a felony in New York for the purpose of enhanced sentencing ( see People v Cabassa , 188 AD3d 716, 717-718 ), and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for resentencing ( see id. ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Casey
green
1 sentence2020However, we reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction ( see People v Casey , 82 AD3d 1005 ). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Samms
green
1 sentence2020The defendant's contention that his prior federal conviction of unlawful possession [*2]of a firearm in violation of 18 USC § 922 (g)(l) did not qualify as a predicate New York felony pursuant to Penal Law § 70.06 is unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v Samms , 95 NY2d 52, 57 ). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Brigante
green
1 sentence2001The People were required to establish that defendant possessed a loaded firearm, and since the evidence before the jury presented an issue of fact as to whether the weapon in question so qualified, the jury should have received a full definition of the term “firearm” (see, People v Brigante, 186 AD2d 360 , lv denied 81 NY2d 761 ). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Williams v. Bratton
green
1 sentence1999Williams v. Bratton , 238 A.D.2d 269 (1st Dept 1997). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
People v. Lopez
green
1 sentence1989The court held: "While the display of 'what appears to be’ a firearm test requires a 'display [of] something that could reasonably be perceived as a firearm’ (People v Baskerville, 60 NY2d 374, 381 ), there is no requirement that the object need be anything other than the defendant’s hand” ( 135 AD2d 443, 443-444 ). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
People v. Knowles
green
1 sentence1987Indeed, in People v Knowles ( 79 AD2d 116, 123 ), a case decided before Baskerville , the court expressly held that "where an unarmed robber holds his hand in his pocket so as to give the impression that he is holding a gun, he has '[d]isplay[ed] what appears to be a * * * firearm’ within the meaning” of the statute. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.