results of DNA analysis in New York

11 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2025 4 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.

Followed or applied (12)

Case	Followed	Cited
People v. Crimminsgreen ny · 1975 · cited in 3 New York opinions naming this issue, 2024–2025 2 sentences 2025Nevertheless, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt ( see id. at 42-43; People v Crimmins , 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]). 2025Nevertheless, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt ( see id. at 42-43; People v Crimmins , 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]).	3	3
People v. Burtongreen ny · 2009 · cited in 4 New York opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 2 sentences 2011Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the People committed a Brady violation by failing to disclose a report (hereafter, DNA report) containing the results of DNA analysis of a broken beer bottle allegedly used in the robbery (see People v Caswell, 56 AD3d 1300 , 1303 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 923 [2009], reconsideration denied 12 NY3d 781 [2009], cert denied 556 US —, 129 S Ct 2775 [2009]; People v Thomas, 8 AD3d 303 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 671 [2004]). 2011As noted in our prior reversal, defendant’s contention that the People committed a Brady violation by failing to disclose a report containing the results of DNA analysis of a broken beer bottle allegedly used in the robbery (hereafter, DNA report) is unpreserved for our review inasmuch as defendant did not “object[ ] to the lack of disclosure or otherwise alert[ ] the court to the basis for reversal set forth in the CPL 330.30 motions” at the time of trial (Benton, 78 AD3d at 1546; see People v Caswell, 56 AD3d 1300 , 1303 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 923 [2009], reconsideration denied 12 NY3d 78	2	4
People v. Clarkegreen ny · 2009 · cited in 4 New York opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 2 sentences 2011Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the People committed a Brady violation by failing to disclose a report (hereafter, DNA report) containing the results of DNA analysis of a broken beer bottle allegedly used in the robbery (see People v Caswell, 56 AD3d 1300 , 1303 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 923 [2009], reconsideration denied 12 NY3d 781 [2009], cert denied 556 US —, 129 S Ct 2775 [2009]; People v Thomas, 8 AD3d 303 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 671 [2004]). 2011As noted in our prior reversal, defendant’s contention that the People committed a Brady violation by failing to disclose a report containing the results of DNA analysis of a broken beer bottle allegedly used in the robbery (hereafter, DNA report) is unpreserved for our review inasmuch as defendant did not “object[ ] to the lack of disclosure or otherwise alert[ ] the court to the basis for reversal set forth in the CPL 330.30 motions” at the time of trial (Benton, 78 AD3d at 1546; see People v Caswell, 56 AD3d 1300 , 1303 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 923 [2009], reconsideration denied 12 NY3d 78	2	4
People v. Forbesgreen nyappdiv · 1993 · cited in 2 New York opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 2 sentences 2011In any event, that contention is without merit because the DNA report was not exculpatory in nature (see People v Wright, 43 AD3d 1359, 1360 , lv denied 9 NY3d 1011 ; People v Scott, 32 AD3d 1178, 1179 , lv denied 8 NY3d 884 ; see also People v Forbes, 190 AD2d 1005 , lv denied 81 NY2d 970 ). 2011In any event, that contention is without merit because the DNA report was not exculpatory in nature (see People v Wright, 43 AD3d 1359, 1360 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1011 [2007]; People v Scott, 32 AD3d 1178, 1179 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 884 [2007]; see also People v Forbes, 190 AD2d 1005 [1993], lv denied 81 NY2d 970 [1993]).	2	2
People v. Bentongreen nyappdiv · 2010 · cited in 2 New York opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 2 sentences 2011As noted in our prior reversal, defendant’s contention that the People committed a Brady violation by failing to disclose a report containing the results of DNA analysis of a broken beer bottle allegedly used in the robbery (hereafter, DNA report) is unpreserved for our review inasmuch as defendant did not “object[] to the lack of disclosure or otherwise alert[] the court to the basis for reversal set forth in the CPL 330.30 motions” at the time of trial (Benton, 78 AD3d at 1546 ; see People v Caswell, 56 AD3d 1300 , 1303, lv denied 11 NY3d 923 , 12 NY3d 781 , cert denied ___ US ___, 129 S Ct 2011As noted in our prior reversal, defendant’s contention that the People committed a Brady violation by failing to disclose a report containing the results of DNA analysis of a broken beer bottle allegedly used in the robbery (hereafter, DNA report) is unpreserved for our review inasmuch as defendant did not “object[ ] to the lack of disclosure or otherwise alert[ ] the court to the basis for reversal set forth in the CPL 330.30 motions” at the time of trial (Benton, 78 AD3d at 1546; see People v Caswell, 56 AD3d 1300 , 1303 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 923 [2009], reconsideration denied 12 NY3d 78	1	2
People v. Scottgreen nyappdiv · 2006 · cited in 2 New York opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 2 sentences 2011In any event, that contention is without merit because the DNA report was not exculpatory in nature (see People v Wright, 43 AD3d 1359, 1360 , lv denied 9 NY3d 1011 ; People v Scott, 32 AD3d 1178, 1179 , lv denied 8 NY3d 884 ; see also People v Forbes, 190 AD2d 1005 , lv denied 81 NY2d 970 ). 2011In any event, that contention is without merit because the DNA report was not exculpatory in nature (see People v Wright, 43 AD3d 1359, 1360 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1011 [2007]; People v Scott, 32 AD3d 1178, 1179 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 884 [2007]; see also People v Forbes, 190 AD2d 1005 [1993], lv denied 81 NY2d 970 [1993]).	1	2
People v. Wrightgreen nyappdiv · 2007 · cited in 2 New York opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 2 sentences 2011In any event, that contention is without merit because the DNA report was not exculpatory in nature (see People v Wright, 43 AD3d 1359, 1360 , lv denied 9 NY3d 1011 ; People v Scott, 32 AD3d 1178, 1179 , lv denied 8 NY3d 884 ; see also People v Forbes, 190 AD2d 1005 , lv denied 81 NY2d 970 ). 2011In any event, that contention is without merit because the DNA report was not exculpatory in nature (see People v Wright, 43 AD3d 1359, 1360 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1011 [2007]; People v Scott, 32 AD3d 1178, 1179 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 884 [2007]; see also People v Forbes, 190 AD2d 1005 [1993], lv denied 81 NY2d 970 [1993]).	1	2
People v. Aligreen nyappdiv · 1993 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 1 sentence 2016The remaining challenged periods were excludable as reasonable delay while the People were awaiting the results of DNA analysis being conducted by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (see CPL 30.30 [4] [g]; People v Robinson, 47 AD3d 847, 848 [2d Dept 2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 869 [2008]; see also People v Lathon, 120 AD3d 1132 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1085 [2014]), delay following decisions on defense motions after the People had declared readiness for trial (see People v Moorhead, 61 NY2d 851 [1984]; see also People v David, 253 AD2d 642 , 645 [1st Dept 1998], lv denied 92 NY2d	1	1
People v. Robinsongreen nyappdiv · 2008 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 1 sentence 2016The remaining challenged periods were excludable as reasonable delay while the People were awaiting the results of DNA analysis being conducted by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (see CPL 30.30 [4] [g]; People v Robinson, 47 AD3d 847, 848 [2d Dept 2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 869 [2008]; see also People v Lathon, 120 AD3d 1132 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1085 [2014]), delay following decisions on defense motions after the People had declared readiness for trial (see People v Moorhead, 61 NY2d 851 [1984]; see also People v David, 253 AD2d 642 , 645 [1st Dept 1998], lv denied 92 NY2d	1	1
People v. Beneventogreen nyappdiv · 1998 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 1 sentence 2016The remaining challenged periods were excludable as reasonable delay while the People were awaiting the results of DNA analysis being conducted by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (see CPL 30.30 [4] [g]; People v Robinson, 47 AD3d 847, 848 [2d Dept 2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 869 [2008]; see also People v Lathon, 120 AD3d 1132 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1085 [2014]), delay following decisions on defense motions after the People had declared readiness for trial (see People v Moorhead, 61 NY2d 851 [1984]; see also People v David, 253 AD2d 642 , 645 [1st Dept 1998], lv denied 92 NY2d	1	1
People v. Moorheadgreen ny · 1984 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 1 sentence 2016The remaining challenged periods were excludable as reasonable delay while the People were awaiting the results of DNA analysis being conducted by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (see CPL 30.30 [4] [g]; People v Robinson, 47 AD3d 847, 848 [2d Dept 2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 869 [2008]; see also People v Lathon, 120 AD3d 1132 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1085 [2014]), delay following decisions on defense motions after the People had declared readiness for trial (see People v Moorhead, 61 NY2d 851 [1984]; see also People v David, 253 AD2d 642 , 645 [1st Dept 1998], lv denied 92 NY2d	1	1
People v. Lathongreen nyappdiv · 2014 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 1 sentence 2016The remaining challenged periods were excludable as reasonable delay while the People were awaiting the results of DNA analysis being conducted by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (see CPL 30.30 [4] [g]; People v Robinson, 47 AD3d 847, 848 [2d Dept 2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 869 [2008]; see also People v Lathon, 120 AD3d 1132 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1085 [2014]), delay following decisions on defense motions after the People had declared readiness for trial (see People v Moorhead, 61 NY2d 851 [1984]; see also People v David, 253 AD2d 642 , 645 [1st Dept 1998], lv denied 92 NY2d	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

Case	Cited	Years
People v. Burton green ny · 2004 2 sentences 2011Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the People committed a Brady violation by failing to disclose a report (hereafter, DNA report) containing the results of DNA analysis of a broken beer bottle allegedly used in the robbery (see People v Caswell, 56 AD3d 1300 , 1303 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 923 [2009], reconsideration denied 12 NY3d 781 [2009], cert denied 556 US —, 129 S Ct 2775 [2009]; People v Thomas, 8 AD3d 303 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 671 [2004]). 2011As noted in our prior reversal, defendant’s contention that the People committed a Brady violation by failing to disclose a report containing the results of DNA analysis of a broken beer bottle allegedly used in the robbery (hereafter, DNA report) is unpreserved for our review inasmuch as defendant did not “object[ ] to the lack of disclosure or otherwise alert[ ] the court to the basis for reversal set forth in the CPL 330.30 motions” at the time of trial (Benton, 78 AD3d at 1546; see People v Caswell, 56 AD3d 1300 , 1303 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 923 [2009], reconsideration denied 12 NY3d 78	4	2011–2011
People v. Thomas green nyappdiv · 2004 2 sentences 2011Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the People committed a Brady violation by failing to disclose a report (hereafter, DNA report) containing the results of DNA analysis of a broken beer bottle allegedly used in the robbery (see People v Caswell, 56 AD3d 1300 , 1303 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 923 [2009], reconsideration denied 12 NY3d 781 [2009], cert denied 556 US —, 129 S Ct 2775 [2009]; People v Thomas, 8 AD3d 303 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 671 [2004]). 2011As noted in our prior reversal, defendant’s contention that the People committed a Brady violation by failing to disclose a report containing the results of DNA analysis of a broken beer bottle allegedly used in the robbery (hereafter, DNA report) is unpreserved for our review inasmuch as defendant did not “object[ ] to the lack of disclosure or otherwise alert[ ] the court to the basis for reversal set forth in the CPL 330.30 motions” at the time of trial (Benton, 78 AD3d at 1546; see People v Caswell, 56 AD3d 1300 , 1303 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 923 [2009], reconsideration denied 12 NY3d 78	4	2011–2011
Mesholam v. Mesholam green ny · 2008 2 sentences 2011In any event, that contention is without merit because the DNA report was not exculpatory in nature (see People v Wright, 43 AD3d 1359, 1360 , lv denied 9 NY3d 1011 ; People v Scott, 32 AD3d 1178, 1179 , lv denied 8 NY3d 884 ; see also People v Forbes, 190 AD2d 1005 , lv denied 81 NY2d 970 ). 2011In any event, that contention is without merit because the DNA report was not exculpatory in nature (see People v Wright, 43 AD3d 1359, 1360 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1011 [2007]; People v Scott, 32 AD3d 1178, 1179 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 884 [2007]; see also People v Forbes, 190 AD2d 1005 [1993], lv denied 81 NY2d 970 [1993]).	2	2011–2011
People v. Adeyeye green nyappdiv · 2021 1 sentence 2023The Supreme Court improperly admitted into evidence the results of DNA analysis conducted using the forensic statistical tool (hereinafter FST) without first holding a hearing pursuant to Frye v United States (293 F 1013 [DC Cir]) ( see People v Easley , 38 NY3d 1010 , 1011; People v Williams , 35 NY3d 24 , 30; People v Adeyeye , 198 AD3d 666, 667 ).	1	2023–2023
The People v. Nnamdi Clarke green ny · 2016 1 sentence 2018The People made a sufficient showing under People v Clarke ( 28 NY3d 48 [2016]) of their exercise of due diligence to obtain those results.	1	2018–2018
Coupe v. Nassau County Civil Service Commission green nyappdiv · 1991 1 sentence 1993In Matter of Barbara A.M. v Gerald J.M. ( 178 AD2d 412 [2d Dept 1991], supra) the Appellate Division found that Family Court properly denied admission of a privately arranged DNA analysis where no evidence was offered concerning the procedures followed by the testing laboratory.	1	1993–1993

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NY § N.Y. Penal Law § 160.10 (4)

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.

Where else courts name it

NY 11 (1993–2025) RI 2 (2006–2012) TN 2 (1997–2013) GA 2 (2004–2022)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check