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 2 courts 1990–2016 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. Kornowskigreen2 sentences2006Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the statements made by the victim to his brother were properly admitted in evidence under the prompt complaint exception to the hearsay rule inasmuch as the statements were made within moments of an incident of sexual contact with defendant, at the “first ‘suitable opportunity’ ” (People v Kornowski, 178 AD2d 984 , 985 [1991], lv denied 89 NY2d 1096 [1997]). 2004County Court properly admitted the testimony of the victim’s grandfather under the prompt complaint exception to the hearsay rule, and thus that testimony did not constitute improper bolstering (see People v McDaniel, 81 NY2d 10, 16-17 [1993]; People v Kornowski, 178 AD2d 984 [1991], lv denied 89 NY2d 1096 [1997]). | 1 | 5 |
People v. McDanielgreen2 sentences2004County Court properly admitted the testimony of the victim’s grandfather under the prompt complaint exception to the hearsay rule, and thus that testimony did not constitute improper bolstering (see People v McDaniel, 81 NY2d 10, 16-17 [1993]; People v Kornowski, 178 AD2d 984 [1991], lv denied 89 NY2d 1096 [1997]). 2001That testimony was admissible under the prompt complaint exception to the hearsay rule (see, People v McDaniel, 81 NY2d 10, 16-17 ; People v Rice, 75 NY2d 929, 931 ). | 1 | 3 |
People v. Alexgreen1 sentence2016Contrary to defendant’s arguments, they do not contain complaints to anyone within the meaning of the prompt complaint exception (see People v Alex, 260 NY 425, 428 [1933] [“evidence that the defendant made (a) complaint (of abuse) when arraigned should have been” admitted]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Archergreen1 sentence2006In any event, we note that the victim’s trial testimony included those statements, and thus defendant was not prejudiced by the admission of the prompt complaint testimony “for it mirrored evidence [that was] disclosed to the jury without objection” (People v Archer, 232 AD2d 820, 822 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 1087 , 90 NY2d 938 [1997]). | 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. Rodriguez
green
2 sentences2004Despite the victim’s delay of at least 15 days in revealing the abuse (see People v Rodriguez, 284 AD2d 952 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 924 [2001]; Kornowski, 178 AD2d at 984-985), the evidence demonstrates that the complaint was “made ‘at the first suitable opportunity’ ” (McDaniel, 81 NY2d at 17 ). 2002That testimony was not admissible under the prompt complaint exception to the hearsay rule (cf People v Rodriguez, 284 AD2d 952 , lv denied 96 NY2d 924 ). | 2 | 2002–2004 |
People v. Rice
green
2 sentences2001That testimony was admissible under the prompt complaint exception to the hearsay rule (see, People v McDaniel, 81 NY2d 10, 16-17 ; People v Rice, 75 NY2d 929, 931 ). 1991Finally, we reject defendant’s contention that the prompt complaint exception to the general rule against bolstering (see, People v Rice, 75 NY2d 929, 931 ) should be "abandoned.” (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Wisner, J.— Attempted Rape, 1st Degree.) Present — Doerr, J. | 2 | 1991–2001 |
People v. Crimmins
green
1 sentence2002The error is harmless, however, because the other evidence of guilt with respect to the sodomy count is overwhelming and there is no significant probability that defendant would have been acquitted but for the error (see generally People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 ). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
People v. Henry
green
1 sentence2001Contrary to defendant’s further contention, consecutive sentences were properly imposed where, as here, there was a temporal break between the acts of sexual abuse, rendering them separate and distinct acts (see, Penal Law § 70.25 [2]; People v Printup, 255 AD2d 1000, 1001 , lv denied 92 NY2d 1037 ). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Baccio v. . the People
green
1 sentence1991The victim’s statements were properly admitted under the prompt complaint rule (see generally, Baccio v People, 41 NY 265 ; People v Ranum, 122 AD2d 959, 961 ). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
People v. Ranum
green
1 sentence1991The victim’s statements were properly admitted under the prompt complaint rule (see generally, Baccio v People, 41 NY 265 ; People v Ranum, 122 AD2d 959, 961 ). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
People v. Jackson
green
1 sentence1990Family Court also improperly admitted into evidence the history portion of the victim’s hospital record under the prompt complaint exception to the hearsay rule (see, People v Jackson, 124 AD2d 975 , lv denied 69 NY2d 746 ). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.