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.
10 New York opinions name it 1 courts 1991–2019 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. Saundersgreen1 sentence2019We decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]), and we further conclude that [*2]defendant was not denied meaningful representation when trial counsel failed to object to the closure inasmuch as "the prosecution established on the record adequate reasons for the closure even if defense counsel had challenged it" ( People v Torres , 300 AD2d 221, 222 [1st Dept 2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 659 [2003]; see also People v Simmons , 220 AD2d 629, 630 [2d Dept 1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 907 [1995]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Torresgreen1 sentence2019We decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]), and we further conclude that [*2]defendant was not denied meaningful representation when trial counsel failed to object to the closure inasmuch as "the prosecution established on the record adequate reasons for the closure even if defense counsel had challenged it" ( People v Torres , 300 AD2d 221, 222 [1st Dept 2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 659 [2003]; see also People v Simmons , 220 AD2d 629, 630 [2d Dept 1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 907 [1995]). | 1 | 1 |
Somerville v. Goordgreen1 sentence2005Although there is some confusion in the record as to whether petitioner actually received the log book entries requested after the Hearing Officer ordered them produced, petitioner did not object prior to the closure of the hearing and thereby waived this claim (see Matter of Somerville v Goord, 12 AD3d 823, 824 [2004]). | 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. Skinner
green
2 sentences1997This testimony sufficiently supports the order of closure (see, People v Mitchell, 209 AD2d 444 ; People v Thompson, 202 AD2d 454 ; People v Campbell, 204 AD2d 474 ; People v Hosien, 204 AD2d 658 ; People v Skinner, 204 AD2d 664 ; People v Jamison, 203 AD2d 385 ; People v Leybovich, 201 AD2d 670 ). 1995These facts meet the requirements for closure under People v Martinez ( 82 NY2d 436, 442 ) (see, People v Mitchell, 209 AD2d 444 ; People v Skinner, 204 AD2d 664 ). | 2 | 1995–1997 |
People v. Mitchell
green
2 sentences1997This testimony sufficiently supports the order of closure (see, People v Mitchell, 209 AD2d 444 ; People v Thompson, 202 AD2d 454 ; People v Campbell, 204 AD2d 474 ; People v Hosien, 204 AD2d 658 ; People v Skinner, 204 AD2d 664 ; People v Jamison, 203 AD2d 385 ; People v Leybovich, 201 AD2d 670 ). 1995These facts meet the requirements for closure under People v Martinez ( 82 NY2d 436, 442 ) (see, People v Mitchell, 209 AD2d 444 ; People v Skinner, 204 AD2d 664 ). | 2 | 1995–1997 |
People v. Green
neutral
1 sentence2001Moreover, the information revealed to the court at the closure hearing was similar to information already relayed to it at a proceeding, lawfully conducted ex parte (CPL 240.90 [3]), on the People’s application for a discovery protective order (see, People v Green, 277 AD2d 11 , supra). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
People v. Martin
green
1 sentence1999Since defendant failed to make a timely objection, which would have permitted the court to rectify the situation instantly by making more detailed findings, defendant failed to preserve his present claim (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Martin, 50 NY2d 1029, 1031 ), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
People v. Leybovich
green
1 sentence1997This testimony sufficiently supports the order of closure (see, People v Mitchell, 209 AD2d 444 ; People v Thompson, 202 AD2d 454 ; People v Campbell, 204 AD2d 474 ; People v Hosien, 204 AD2d 658 ; People v Skinner, 204 AD2d 664 ; People v Jamison, 203 AD2d 385 ; People v Leybovich, 201 AD2d 670 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
People v. Thompson
green
1 sentence1997This testimony sufficiently supports the order of closure (see, People v Mitchell, 209 AD2d 444 ; People v Thompson, 202 AD2d 454 ; People v Campbell, 204 AD2d 474 ; People v Hosien, 204 AD2d 658 ; People v Skinner, 204 AD2d 664 ; People v Jamison, 203 AD2d 385 ; People v Leybovich, 201 AD2d 670 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
People v. Brakas
green
1 sentence1997This testimony sufficiently supports the order of closure (see, People v Mitchell, 209 AD2d 444 ; People v Thompson, 202 AD2d 454 ; People v Campbell, 204 AD2d 474 ; People v Hosien, 204 AD2d 658 ; People v Skinner, 204 AD2d 664 ; People v Jamison, 203 AD2d 385 ; People v Leybovich, 201 AD2d 670 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
People v. Hosien
neutral
1 sentence1997This testimony sufficiently supports the order of closure (see, People v Mitchell, 209 AD2d 444 ; People v Thompson, 202 AD2d 454 ; People v Campbell, 204 AD2d 474 ; People v Hosien, 204 AD2d 658 ; People v Skinner, 204 AD2d 664 ; People v Jamison, 203 AD2d 385 ; People v Leybovich, 201 AD2d 670 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
People v. Jamison
neutral
1 sentence1997This testimony sufficiently supports the order of closure (see, People v Mitchell, 209 AD2d 444 ; People v Thompson, 202 AD2d 454 ; People v Campbell, 204 AD2d 474 ; People v Hosien, 204 AD2d 658 ; People v Skinner, 204 AD2d 664 ; People v Jamison, 203 AD2d 385 ; People v Leybovich, 201 AD2d 670 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
People v. Graham
green
1 sentence1995Under these circumstances, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by extending the closure of the courtroom to the defendant’s family (see, People v Graham, 200 AD2d 686 ). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
People v. Martinez
green
1 sentence1995These facts meet the requirements for closure under People v Martinez ( 82 NY2d 436, 442 ) (see, People v Mitchell, 209 AD2d 444 ; People v Skinner, 204 AD2d 664 ). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
People v. Policano
green
1 sentence1993Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court properly granted the application and was not required, sua sponte, to order the officer in question to appear for a full hearing (see, People v Pollock, 50 NY2d 547 ; People v Jones, 47 NY2d 409 , cert denied 444 US 946 ; People v Policano, 139 AD2d 773 ). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Robinson v. United States
green
1 sentence1993Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court properly granted the application and was not required, sua sponte, to order the officer in question to appear for a full hearing (see, People v Pollock, 50 NY2d 547 ; People v Jones, 47 NY2d 409 , cert denied 444 US 946 ; People v Policano, 139 AD2d 773 ). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
People v. Pollock
green
1 sentence1993Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court properly granted the application and was not required, sua sponte, to order the officer in question to appear for a full hearing (see, People v Pollock, 50 NY2d 547 ; People v Jones, 47 NY2d 409 , cert denied 444 US 946 ; People v Policano, 139 AD2d 773 ). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
People v. Jones
green
1 sentence1993Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court properly granted the application and was not required, sua sponte, to order the officer in question to appear for a full hearing (see, People v Pollock, 50 NY2d 547 ; People v Jones, 47 NY2d 409 , cert denied 444 US 946 ; People v Policano, 139 AD2d 773 ). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
People v. Richards
neutral
1 sentence1991When an officer is actively engaged in the community as an undercover agent, the court may exercise its discretionary power to seal the courtroom during the undercover officer’s testimony (see, People v Hinton, 31 NY2d 71 , cert denied 410 US 911 ; People v Richards, 157 AD2d 753 , affd 77 NY2d 969 ; People v Flores, 152 AD2d 704 ). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
People v. Velasco
green
1 sentence1991It is settled that a defendant’s presence may be dispensed with during purely ministerial proceedings, wholly unrelated to the substantive legal or factual issues of the trial (see, People v Velasco, 77 NY2d 469 ; People v Harris, 76 NY2d 810, 812 ; People v Rodriguez, 76 NY2d 918 ; People v Ferguson, 67 NY2d 383 ), or in situations where his presence would be "useless, or the benefit but a shadow” (Snyder v Massachusetts, supra, at 106-107 ). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Snyder v. Massachusetts
green
2 sentences1991Moreover, the closure hearing did not constitute a material stage of the trial during which the defendant’s presence was required in order to safeguard his constitutional and statutory rights (see, People v Mullen, 44 NY2d 1 , 4-5, citing Snyder v Massachusetts, 291 US 97, 108 ). 1991It is settled that a defendant’s presence may be dispensed with during purely ministerial proceedings, wholly unrelated to the substantive legal or factual issues of the trial (see, People v Velasco, 77 NY2d 469 ; People v Harris, 76 NY2d 810, 812 ; People v Rodriguez, 76 NY2d 918 ; People v Ferguson, 67 NY2d 383 ), or in situations where his presence would be "useless, or the benefit but a shadow” (Snyder v Massachusetts, supra, at 106-107 ). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
People v. Duffy
neutral
1 sentence1991When an officer is actively engaged in the community as an undercover agent, the court may exercise its discretionary power to seal the courtroom during the undercover officer’s testimony (see, People v Hinton, 31 NY2d 71 , cert denied 410 US 911 ; People v Richards, 157 AD2d 753 , affd 77 NY2d 969 ; People v Flores, 152 AD2d 704 ). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
People v. Rivera
neutral
1 sentence1991When an officer is actively engaged in the community as an undercover agent, the court may exercise its discretionary power to seal the courtroom during the undercover officer’s testimony (see, People v Hinton, 31 NY2d 71 , cert denied 410 US 911 ; People v Richards, 157 AD2d 753 , affd 77 NY2d 969 ; People v Flores, 152 AD2d 704 ). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
People v. Harris
green
1 sentence1991It is settled that a defendant’s presence may be dispensed with during purely ministerial proceedings, wholly unrelated to the substantive legal or factual issues of the trial (see, People v Velasco, 77 NY2d 469 ; People v Harris, 76 NY2d 810, 812 ; People v Rodriguez, 76 NY2d 918 ; People v Ferguson, 67 NY2d 383 ), or in situations where his presence would be "useless, or the benefit but a shadow” (Snyder v Massachusetts, supra, at 106-107 ). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Hinton v. New York
green
1 sentence1991When an officer is actively engaged in the community as an undercover agent, the court may exercise its discretionary power to seal the courtroom during the undercover officer’s testimony (see, People v Hinton, 31 NY2d 71 , cert denied 410 US 911 ; People v Richards, 157 AD2d 753 , affd 77 NY2d 969 ; People v Flores, 152 AD2d 704 ). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
People v. Hinton
green
1 sentence1991When an officer is actively engaged in the community as an undercover agent, the court may exercise its discretionary power to seal the courtroom during the undercover officer’s testimony (see, People v Hinton, 31 NY2d 71 , cert denied 410 US 911 ; People v Richards, 157 AD2d 753 , affd 77 NY2d 969 ; People v Flores, 152 AD2d 704 ). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
People v. Ferguson
green
1 sentence1991It is settled that a defendant’s presence may be dispensed with during purely ministerial proceedings, wholly unrelated to the substantive legal or factual issues of the trial (see, People v Velasco, 77 NY2d 469 ; People v Harris, 76 NY2d 810, 812 ; People v Rodriguez, 76 NY2d 918 ; People v Ferguson, 67 NY2d 383 ), or in situations where his presence would be "useless, or the benefit but a shadow” (Snyder v Massachusetts, supra, at 106-107 ). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
People ex rel. Richards v. Bartlett
green
1 sentence1991It is settled that a defendant’s presence may be dispensed with during purely ministerial proceedings, wholly unrelated to the substantive legal or factual issues of the trial (see, People v Velasco, 77 NY2d 469 ; People v Harris, 76 NY2d 810, 812 ; People v Rodriguez, 76 NY2d 918 ; People v Ferguson, 67 NY2d 383 ), or in situations where his presence would be "useless, or the benefit but a shadow” (Snyder v Massachusetts, supra, at 106-107 ). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.