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 1 courts 1988–2013 0 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. Harrisgreen2 sentences2013Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant preserved for our review his further contention that his statements to the police were obtained in violation of his right to counsel, we conclude that he thereafter waived that contention inasmuch as he conceded during the suppression hearing that the police ceased questioning him immediately after he requested a lawyer (see generally People v Harris, 97 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1026 [2012]). 2013Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant preserved for our review his further contention that his statements to the police were obtained in violation of his right to counsel, we conclude that he thereafter waived that contention inasmuch as he conceded during the suppression hearing that the police ceased questioning him immediately after he requested a lawyer (see generally People v Harris, 97 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1026 [2012]). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Groffgreen2 sentences2013Contrary to defendant’s contention, the unsworn testimony of the seven-year-old victim was sufficiently corroborated by “evidence tending to establish the crime and connecting defendant with its commission” (People v Groff, 71 NY2d 101, 104 [1987]), including evidence of defendant’s opportunity to commit the crime, the testimony of other witnesses, and the victim’s description of a pornographic video that was found on defendant’s computer. 2013Contrary to defendant’s contention, the unsworn testimony of the seven-year-old victim was sufficiently corroborated by “evidence tending to establish the crime and connecting defendant with its commission” (People v Groff, 71 NY2d 101, 104 [1987]), including evidence of defendant’s opportunity to commit the crime, the testimony of other witnesses, and the victim’s description of a pornographic video that was found on defendant’s computer. | 2 | 3 |
People v. McLeangreen2 sentences2011Although defendant abandoned that contention by failing to seek a ruling on that part of his omnibus motion and failing to object to the admission in evidence of the statements at trial (see People v Anderson, 52 AD3d 1320 , lv denied 11 NY3d 733 ), it may be raised for the first time on appeal (see generally People v McLean, 15 NY3d 117, 119 ; People v Whetstone, 281 AD2d 904 , lv denied 96 NY2d 909 ). 2011Although defendant abandoned that contention by failing to seek a ruling on that part of his omnibus motion and failing to object to the admission in evidence of the statements at trial (see People v Anderson, 52 AD3d 1320 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 733 [2008]), it may be raised for the first time on appeal (see generally People v McLean, 15 NY3d 117, 119 [2010]; People v Whetstone, 281 AD2d 904 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 909 [2001]). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Rumphgreen1 sentence2007Furthermore, the defendant’s contention that those statements were obtained in violation of his right to remain silent is without merit (see People v Stanley, 292 AD2d 472, 473 [2002]; People v Rumph, 260 AD2d 156, 157 [1999]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Singhgreen1 sentence2007Furthermore, the defendant’s contention that those statements were obtained in violation of his right to remain silent is without merit (see People v Stanley, 292 AD2d 472, 473 [2002]; People v Rumph, 260 AD2d 156, 157 [1999]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Kinchengreen1 sentence2007The defendant failed to create a record sufficient to permit appellate review of his claim that certain incriminating statements that he made to the police were obtained in violation of his right to counsel (see People v Kinchen, 60 NY2d 772, 773-774 [1983]; People v Flournoy, 303 AD2d 762 [2003]). | 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. Anderson
green
2 sentences2011Although defendant abandoned that contention by failing to seek a ruling on that part of his omnibus motion and failing to object to the admission in evidence of the statements at trial (see People v Anderson, 52 AD3d 1320 , lv denied 11 NY3d 733 ), it may be raised for the first time on appeal (see generally People v McLean, 15 NY3d 117, 119 ; People v Whetstone, 281 AD2d 904 , lv denied 96 NY2d 909 ). 2011Although defendant abandoned that contention by failing to seek a ruling on that part of his omnibus motion and failing to object to the admission in evidence of the statements at trial (see People v Anderson, 52 AD3d 1320 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 733 [2008]), it may be raised for the first time on appeal (see generally People v McLean, 15 NY3d 117, 119 [2010]; People v Whetstone, 281 AD2d 904 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 909 [2001]). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Yadid, LLC v. Gcw Bell Corp.
green
2 sentences2011Although defendant abandoned that contention by failing to seek a ruling on that part of his omnibus motion and failing to object to the admission in evidence of the statements at trial (see People v Anderson, 52 AD3d 1320 , lv denied 11 NY3d 733 ), it may be raised for the first time on appeal (see generally People v McLean, 15 NY3d 117, 119 ; People v Whetstone, 281 AD2d 904 , lv denied 96 NY2d 909 ). 2011Although defendant abandoned that contention by failing to seek a ruling on that part of his omnibus motion and failing to object to the admission in evidence of the statements at trial (see People v Anderson, 52 AD3d 1320 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 733 [2008]), it may be raised for the first time on appeal (see generally People v McLean, 15 NY3d 117, 119 [2010]; People v Whetstone, 281 AD2d 904 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 909 [2001]). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
People v. Crews
green
2 sentences2011Although defendant abandoned that contention by failing to seek a ruling on that part of his omnibus motion and failing to object to the admission in evidence of the statements at trial (see People v Anderson, 52 AD3d 1320 , lv denied 11 NY3d 733 ), it may be raised for the first time on appeal (see generally People v McLean, 15 NY3d 117, 119 ; People v Whetstone, 281 AD2d 904 , lv denied 96 NY2d 909 ). 2011Although defendant abandoned that contention by failing to seek a ruling on that part of his omnibus motion and failing to object to the admission in evidence of the statements at trial (see People v Anderson, 52 AD3d 1320 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 733 [2008]), it may be raised for the first time on appeal (see generally People v McLean, 15 NY3d 117, 119 [2010]; People v Whetstone, 281 AD2d 904 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 909 [2001]). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
People v. Flournoy
green
1 sentence2007The defendant failed to create a record sufficient to permit appellate review of his claim that certain incriminating statements that he made to the police were obtained in violation of his right to counsel (see People v Kinchen, 60 NY2d 772, 773-774 [1983]; People v Flournoy, 303 AD2d 762 [2003]). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
People v. Roland
neutral
1 sentence1998The statements were made while defendant was in jail on a pending unrelated charge, and defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing that he was represented by an attorney on that charge at the time of the interrogation (see, People v Rosa, 65 NY2d 380 , 387; People v Roland, 152 AD2d 1002 , lv denied 75 NY2d 775 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
People v. Adams
green
1 sentence1992Thus, that issue has not been preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Adams, 57 NY2d 1035, 1037 ). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
People v. Bartolomeo
red
1 sentence1989Memorandum: For the first time on appeal, defendant asserts that his statements to the police were obtained in violation of his right to counsel (see, People v Bartolomeo, 53 NY2d 225 ). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
People v. Lucarano
green
1 sentence1989The interrogating officer testified that the defendant denied having any criminal charges pending against him. "[W]here defendant has frustrated police efforts to ascertain the true state of affairs by denying such representation even though it exists, he himself thwarts the efforts to effectuate” the protection of his right to counsel (People v Lucarano, 61 NY2d 138, 147 ). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
People v. Samuels
green
1 sentence1988We find nothing in the record to support defendant’s claim that his statements to the police were obtained in violation of his right to counsel under the rule enunciated in People v Samuels ( 49 NY2d 218 ). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.