11 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2025 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. Nicholsgreen2 sentences2015Although defendant moved at the close of the People’s case for a trial order of dismissal on the ground that the People failed to prove that element of the crimes charged, he did not renew the motion after the defense rested (see People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 61 [2001], rearg denied 97 NY2d 678 [2001]; People v Nichols, 89 AD3d 1503, 1504 [2011]). 2015Although defendant moved at the close of the People’s case for a trial order of dismissal on the ground that the People failed to prove that element of the crimes charged, he did not renew the motion after the defense rested (see People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 61 [2001], rearg denied 97 NY2d 678 [2001]; People v Nichols, 89 AD3d 1503, 1504 [2011]). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Hinesgreen2 sentences2015Although defendant moved at the close of the People’s case for a trial order of dismissal on the ground that the People failed to prove that element of the crimes charged, he did not renew the motion after the defense rested (see People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 61 [2001], rearg denied 97 NY2d 678 [2001]; People v Nichols, 89 AD3d 1503, 1504 [2011]). 2015Although defendant moved at the close of the People’s case for a trial order of dismissal on the ground that the People failed to prove that element of the crimes charged, he did not renew the motion after the defense rested (see People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 61 [2001], rearg denied 97 NY2d 678 [2001]; People v Nichols, 89 AD3d 1503, 1504 [2011]). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Salemigreen2 sentences1985Newly discovered evidence necessitates a new trial where, inter alia, the finder of fact concludes that its introduction at a new trial would probably change the verdict (see, People v Powell, 96 AD2d 610 ; see also, People v Salemi, 309 NY 208 , cert denied 350 US 950 ). 1983Since the newly discovered evidence is merely contradictory and impeaching of testimony presented at the trial, and since the evidence is not of such a character that it is probable the jury would have returned a verdict more favorable to defendant, we affirm County Court’s denial of defendant’s motion (see People v Salemi, 309 NY 208, 216 ; People v Wagner, 51 AD2d 186, 188-189 ). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Rodneygreen1 sentence2025Furthermore, even if preclusion is not mandated, the "the purpose of CPL § 710.30 is to inform a defendant that the People intend to offer evidence of a statement to a public officer at trial so that a timely motion to suppress the evidence may be made" ( People v Rodney , 85 NY2d 289, 291-92 [1995]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Merrillgreen1 sentence2009Despite the inadequate notice, most of the statements were admissible against defendant because he moved to suppress his statements, those statements were identified at a hearing addressing their voluntariness and the court denied the motion after that hearing (see CPL 710.30 [3]; People v Merrill, 87 NY2d 948, 949 [1996], revg on dissenting mem at 212 AD2d 987, 988 [1995, Denman, P.J., and Balio, J., dissenting]; People v Martinez, 9 AD3d 679, 680 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 709 [2004]; People v Brown, 281 AD2d 700, 701 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 826 [2001]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Merrillgreen1 sentence2009Despite the inadequate notice, most of the statements were admissible against defendant because he moved to suppress his statements, those statements were identified at a hearing addressing their voluntariness and the court denied the motion after that hearing (see CPL 710.30 [3]; People v Merrill, 87 NY2d 948, 949 [1996], revg on dissenting mem at 212 AD2d 987, 988 [1995, Denman, P.J., and Balio, J., dissenting]; People v Martinez, 9 AD3d 679, 680 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 709 [2004]; People v Brown, 281 AD2d 700, 701 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 826 [2001]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Martinezgreen1 sentence2009Despite the inadequate notice, most of the statements were admissible against defendant because he moved to suppress his statements, those statements were identified at a hearing addressing their voluntariness and the court denied the motion after that hearing (see CPL 710.30 [3]; People v Merrill, 87 NY2d 948, 949 [1996], revg on dissenting mem at 212 AD2d 987, 988 [1995, Denman, P.J., and Balio, J., dissenting]; People v Martinez, 9 AD3d 679, 680 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 709 [2004]; People v Brown, 281 AD2d 700, 701 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 826 [2001]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Vasquezgreen1 sentence2009The only statement that was not addressed at the suppression hearing—that defendant asked to be taken to the hospital for a blood test—was raised in defense counsel’s opening statement, which opened the door for use of defendant’s statement during the People’s case-in-chief (see People v Vasquez, 33 AD3d 636, 637 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 850 [2007]). * The prosecutor’s summation did not deprive defendant of a fair trial. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Browngreen1 sentence2009Despite the inadequate notice, most of the statements were admissible against defendant because he moved to suppress his statements, those statements were identified at a hearing addressing their voluntariness and the court denied the motion after that hearing (see CPL 710.30 [3]; People v Merrill, 87 NY2d 948, 949 [1996], revg on dissenting mem at 212 AD2d 987, 988 [1995, Denman, P.J., and Balio, J., dissenting]; People v Martinez, 9 AD3d 679, 680 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 709 [2004]; People v Brown, 281 AD2d 700, 701 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 826 [2001]). | 1 | 1 |
March v. New Yorkgreen1 sentence1985Newly discovered evidence necessitates a new trial where, inter alia, the finder of fact concludes that its introduction at a new trial would probably change the verdict (see, People v Powell, 96 AD2d 610 ; see also, People v Salemi, 309 NY 208 , cert denied 350 US 950 ). | 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. Lazzaro
green
2 sentences2025Persuasive appellate authority has held that the mere act of moving for suppression forecloses the challenge defense requests now ( see People v. Williams , 238 AD2d 914 [4th Dept., 1997] ["By moving for suppression, defendant waived his right to challenge the adequacy of the CPL 710.30 notice."]; People v. Lazzaro , 62 AD3d 1035 [3rd Dept., 2009] ["Despite the inadequate notice, most of the statements were admissible against defendant because he moved to suppress his statements, those statements were identified at a hearing addressing their voluntariness and the court denied the motion after 2025Persuasive appellate authority has held that the mere act of moving for suppression forecloses the challenge defense requests now ( see People v Williams , 238 AD2d 914 [4th [*2]Dept1997] ["By moving for suppression, defendant waived his right to challenge the adequacy of the CPL 710.30 notice"]; People v Lazzaro , 62 AD3d 1035 [3d Dept 2009] ["Despite the inadequate notice, most of the statements were admissible against defendant because he moved to suppress his statements, those statements were identified at a hearing addressing their voluntariness and the court denied the motion after the h | 3 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Williams
neutral
2 sentences2025Persuasive appellate authority has held that the mere act of moving for suppression forecloses the challenge defense requests now ( see People v. Williams , 238 AD2d 914 [4th Dept., 1997] ["By moving for suppression, defendant waived his right to challenge the adequacy of the CPL 710.30 notice."]; People v. Lazzaro , 62 AD3d 1035 [3rd Dept., 2009] ["Despite the inadequate notice, most of the statements were admissible against defendant because he moved to suppress his statements, those statements were identified at a hearing addressing their voluntariness and the court denied the motion after 2025Persuasive appellate authority has held that the mere act of moving for suppression forecloses the challenge defense requests now ( see People v Williams , 238 AD2d 914 [4th [*2]Dept1997] ["By moving for suppression, defendant waived his right to challenge the adequacy of the CPL 710.30 notice"]; People v Lazzaro , 62 AD3d 1035 [3d Dept 2009] ["Despite the inadequate notice, most of the statements were admissible against defendant because he moved to suppress his statements, those statements were identified at a hearing addressing their voluntariness and the court denied the motion after the h | 3 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Marquez
green
1 sentence2009Despite the inadequate notice, most of the statements were admissible against defendant because he moved to suppress his statements, those statements were identified at a hearing addressing their voluntariness and the court denied the motion after that hearing (see CPL 710.30 [3]; People v Merrill, 87 NY2d 948, 949 [1996], revg on dissenting mem at 212 AD2d 987, 988 [1995, Denman, P.J., and Balio, J., dissenting]; People v Martinez, 9 AD3d 679, 680 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 709 [2004]; People v Brown, 281 AD2d 700, 701 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 826 [2001]). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
People v. Wainwright
green
2 sentences2004This Court ( 285 AD2d 358 [2001]) reversed, finding, among other things, albeit in a different procedural context from that of the present appeal, that the buyer’s testimony “probably would not change the result,” and that “the record amply supports a finding that the decision to forgo witnesses was a reasonable trial strategy to which defendant agreed” ( 285 AD2d at 360 ). 2004This Court ( 285 AD2d 358 [2001]) reversed, finding, among other things, albeit in a different procedural context from that of the present appeal, that the buyer’s testimony “probably would not change the result,” and that “the record amply supports a finding that the decision to forgo witnesses was a reasonable trial strategy to which defendant agreed” ( 285 AD2d at 360 ). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Ira K. v. Frances K.
green
1 sentence1988Since the determination as to whether an award of custody should be modified depends to a very great extent upon assessments of credibility of the witnesses and upon assessments of the character and temperament of the parents, the finding of the hearing court must be accorded great respect (Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167 ; Ira K. v Frances K., 115 AD2d 699 ). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Eschbach v. Eschbach
green
1 sentence1988Since the determination as to whether an award of custody should be modified depends to a very great extent upon assessments of credibility of the witnesses and upon assessments of the character and temperament of the parents, the finding of the hearing court must be accorded great respect (Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167 ; Ira K. v Frances K., 115 AD2d 699 ). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
People v. Edwards
green
1 sentence1985Newly discovered evidence necessitates a new trial where, inter alia, the finder of fact concludes that its introduction at a new trial would probably change the verdict (see, People v Powell, 96 AD2d 610 ; see also, People v Salemi, 309 NY 208 , cert denied 350 US 950 ). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
People v. Wagner
green
1 sentence1983Since the newly discovered evidence is merely contradictory and impeaching of testimony presented at the trial, and since the evidence is not of such a character that it is probable the jury would have returned a verdict more favorable to defendant, we affirm County Court’s denial of defendant’s motion (see People v Salemi, 309 NY 208, 216 ; People v Wagner, 51 AD2d 186, 188-189 ). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.