10 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1997–2021 2 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. Simmonsgreen2 sentences2021We also note that defendant signed in open court the waiver of indictment in which he consented to being prosecuted by superior court information (SCI), and the court's order approving the waiver stated that it complied with the provisions of CPL 195.10 ( see Gassner , — AD3d at &mdash, 2021 NY Slip Op 02192, *1 ; People v Simmons , 110 AD3d 1371, 1372 [3d Dept 2013]; Barber , 280 AD2d at 693 ). 2021We also note that defendant signed in open court the waiver of indictment in which he consented to being prosecuted by superior court information (SCI), and the court's order approving the waiver stated that the waiver complied with the provisions of CPL 195.10 ( see Gassner , 193 AD3d at 1184 ; People v Simmons , 110 AD3d 1371, 1372 [3d Dept 2013]; Barber , 280 AD2d at 693 ). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Donnellygreen2 sentences2020Under these circumstances, we view the absence of the District Attorney's endorsement on the written waiver of indictment to be a technical violation of the statute that in no way infringed upon defendant's right to indictment by a grand jury ( cf. People v Pigford , 148 AD3d 1299, 1302 [2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1085 [2017]; see generally NY Const, art I, § 6; compare People v McGregor , 44 AD3d 1089, 1090 [2007]; People v Donnelly , 23 AD3d 921, 922 [2005]). 2011Under these circumstances, we conclude that defendant’s waiver of indictment was valid (see People v McIntyre, 178 AD2d 559, 560 [1991]; see also People v Kalvaitis, 238 AD2d 756, 757 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 859 [1997]) — even though the plea minutes are silent with regard to defendant’s execution thereof (see People v Wicks, 42 AD3d 585 [2007]; compare People v Donnelly, supra). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Myersgreen1 sentence2020Defendant's and his attorney's acknowledgement that defendant signed the written waiver of indictment in open court in the presence of his attorney, and the court's order approving the waiver, establishes that defendant validly waived his right to be prosecuted by indictment ( see People v Myers , 32 NY3d 18, 21 [2018]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. McGregorgreen1 sentence2020Under these circumstances, we view the absence of the District Attorney's endorsement on the written waiver of indictment to be a technical violation of the statute that in no way infringed upon defendant's right to indictment by a grand jury ( cf. People v Pigford , 148 AD3d 1299, 1302 [2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1085 [2017]; see generally NY Const, art I, § 6; compare People v McGregor , 44 AD3d 1089, 1090 [2007]; People v Donnelly , 23 AD3d 921, 922 [2005]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Pigfordgreen1 sentence2020Under these circumstances, we view the absence of the District Attorney's endorsement on the written waiver of indictment to be a technical violation of the statute that in no way infringed upon defendant's right to indictment by a grand jury ( cf. People v Pigford , 148 AD3d 1299, 1302 [2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1085 [2017]; see generally NY Const, art I, § 6; compare People v McGregor , 44 AD3d 1089, 1090 [2007]; People v Donnelly , 23 AD3d 921, 922 [2005]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Weinberggreen1 sentence2018Mr. Myers' second argument rests, albeit mistakenly, on a vital and settled proposition: "It is axiomatic in our jurisprudence that a waiver of a substantial right must be made knowingly and intelligently" ( People v Weinberg , 34 NY2d 429, 431 [1974]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Piercegreen1 sentence2018The superior court information properly charged defendant with third-degree robbery, because it is a lesser included offense of second-degree robbery, a charge in the felony complaint on which defendant was held for grand jury action ( see People v Pierce , 14 NY3d 564, 568 [2010]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hauensteingreen1 sentence2015Given the presumption of regularity accorded to judicial proceedings and the lack of any evidence by defendant to rebut that presumption, we find the waiver of indictment to be valid (see People v Simmons, 110 AD3d at 1372-1373 ; People v Hauenstein, 106 AD3d 1339, 1339-1340 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1042 [2013]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. McIntyregreen1 sentence2011Under these circumstances, we conclude that defendant’s waiver of indictment was valid (see People v McIntyre, 178 AD2d 559, 560 [1991]; see also People v Kalvaitis, 238 AD2d 756, 757 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 859 [1997]) — even though the plea minutes are silent with regard to defendant’s execution thereof (see People v Wicks, 42 AD3d 585 [2007]; compare People v Donnelly, supra). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Boudrieaugreen1 sentence2011Under these circumstances, we conclude that defendant’s waiver of indictment was valid (see People v McIntyre, 178 AD2d 559, 560 [1991]; see also People v Kalvaitis, 238 AD2d 756, 757 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 859 [1997]) — even though the plea minutes are silent with regard to defendant’s execution thereof (see People v Wicks, 42 AD3d 585 [2007]; compare People v Donnelly, supra). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Kalvaitisgreen1 sentence2011Under these circumstances, we conclude that defendant’s waiver of indictment was valid (see People v McIntyre, 178 AD2d 559, 560 [1991]; see also People v Kalvaitis, 238 AD2d 756, 757 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 859 [1997]) — even though the plea minutes are silent with regard to defendant’s execution thereof (see People v Wicks, 42 AD3d 585 [2007]; compare People v Donnelly, supra). | 1 | 1 |
People v. D'Amicogreen1 sentence1997In view of this, we find that the statutory requirements of CPL 195.10 were satisfied (see, People v Mitchell, 235 AD2d 834, 835 , lv denied 89 NY2d 1038 ; see generally, People v D’Amico, 76 NY2d 877 ). | 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. Gassner
green
2 sentences2021We also note that defendant signed in open court the waiver of indictment in which he consented to being prosecuted by superior court information (SCI), and the court's order approving the waiver stated that it complied with the provisions of CPL 195.10 ( see Gassner , — AD3d at &mdash, 2021 NY Slip Op 02192, *1 ; People v Simmons , 110 AD3d 1371, 1372 [3d Dept 2013]; Barber , 280 AD2d at 693 ). 2021We also note that defendant signed in open court the waiver of indictment in which he consented to being prosecuted by superior court information (SCI), and the court's order approving the waiver stated that the waiver complied with the provisions of CPL 195.10 ( see Gassner , 193 AD3d at 1184 ; People v Simmons , 110 AD3d 1371, 1372 [3d Dept 2013]; Barber , 280 AD2d at 693 ). | 2 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Barber
green
2 sentences2021We also note that defendant signed in open court the waiver of indictment in which he consented to being prosecuted by superior court information (SCI), and the court's order approving the waiver stated that it complied with the provisions of CPL 195.10 ( see Gassner , — AD3d at &mdash, 2021 NY Slip Op 02192, *1 ; People v Simmons , 110 AD3d 1371, 1372 [3d Dept 2013]; Barber , 280 AD2d at 693 ). 2021We also note that defendant signed in open court the waiver of indictment in which he consented to being prosecuted by superior court information (SCI), and the court's order approving the waiver stated that the waiver complied with the provisions of CPL 195.10 ( see Gassner , 193 AD3d at 1184 ; People v Simmons , 110 AD3d 1371, 1372 [3d Dept 2013]; Barber , 280 AD2d at 693 ). | 2 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Perez
green
1 sentence2020Under these circumstances, we view the absence of the District Attorney's endorsement on the written waiver of indictment to be a technical violation of the statute that in no way infringed upon defendant's right to indictment by a grand jury ( cf. People v Pigford , 148 AD3d 1299, 1302 [2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1085 [2017]; see generally NY Const, art I, § 6; compare People v McGregor , 44 AD3d 1089, 1090 [2007]; People v Donnelly , 23 AD3d 921, 922 [2005]). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Barba v. Stewart
green
1 sentence2018The record as a whole, including, among other things, the court's order approving the waiver, establishes that defendant properly waived his right to be prosecuted by indictment by executing the written instrument in open court in the presence of his counsel ( see People v Moore , 137 AD3d 704 [1st Dept 2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1136 [2016]). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. McIver
neutral
1 sentence1998(See, People v McIver, 39 AD2d 671 [1st Dept 1972], supra [“In the absence of evidence to the contrary, there is a presumption that the Judge, in reciting that the officer swore to the document, properly carried out the function of his office and truthfully stated the fact”].) From the hearing, it is evident that there was a period of time in Part N when in many cases the State constitutional requirement that a defendant who signs a waiver of indictment do so in open court was not scrupulously honored. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
People v. Mitchell
green
1 sentence1997In view of this, we find that the statutory requirements of CPL 195.10 were satisfied (see, People v Mitchell, 235 AD2d 834, 835 , lv denied 89 NY2d 1038 ; see generally, People v D’Amico, 76 NY2d 877 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.