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 3 courts 1984–2025 1 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. Reddinggreen2 sentences2016Because no determination has yet been made that the single photo identification procedure at issue was unduly suggestive, the appeal may be held in abeyance for a postjudgment hearing (see People v Redding, 47 AD3d 953, 953-954 [2008]). 2016Because no determination has yet been made that the single photo identification procedure at issue was unduly suggestive, the appeal may be held in abeyance for a postjudgment hearing (see People v Redding, 47 AD3d 953, 953-954 [2008]). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Floresgreen1 sentence2025"The constitutional requirement of effective assistance of counsel will be satisfied when 'the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of a particular case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal that the attorney provided meaningful representation'" ( People v Flores , 84 NY2d 184, 187 [1994], quoting People v Baldi , 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981] [emphasis omitted]). "[I]t is incumbent on defendant to demonstrate the absence of [*6]strategic or other legitimate explanations for counsel's alleged shortcomings" ( People v Benevento , 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998] [internal qu | 1 | 1 |
People v. Beneventogreen1 sentence2025"The constitutional requirement of effective assistance of counsel will be satisfied when 'the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of a particular case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal that the attorney provided meaningful representation'" ( People v Flores , 84 NY2d 184, 187 [1994], quoting People v Baldi , 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981] [emphasis omitted]). "[I]t is incumbent on defendant to demonstrate the absence of [*6]strategic or other legitimate explanations for counsel's alleged shortcomings" ( People v Benevento , 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998] [internal qu | 1 | 1 |
People v. Baldigreen1 sentence2025"The constitutional requirement of effective assistance of counsel will be satisfied when 'the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of a particular case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal that the attorney provided meaningful representation'" ( People v Flores , 84 NY2d 184, 187 [1994], quoting People v Baldi , 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981] [emphasis omitted]). "[I]t is incumbent on defendant to demonstrate the absence of [*6]strategic or other legitimate explanations for counsel's alleged shortcomings" ( People v Benevento , 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998] [internal qu | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pellicci v. United States
green
2 sentences1988Finally, as with a waiver of the right to appellate review of suppression rulings, various safeguards ensure against abuse of the practice of conditioning sentencing agreements on an explicit waiver of the right to appeal: "For example, a court can reject a plea agreement which includes a waiver of the right to appeal if the waiver appears to be other than knowing, voluntary and intelligent (see People v Selikoff, 35 NY2d 227, 235 , cert den 419 US 1122 ), or a defendant can seek a postjudgment hearing on whether his waiver, and corresponding plea, was the result of duress, misrepresentation o 1984For example, a court can reject a plea agreement which includes a waiver of the right to appeal if the waiver appears to be other than knowing, voluntary and intelligent (see People v Selikoff, 35 NY2d 227, 235 , cert den 419 US 1122 ), or a defendant can seek a postjudgment hearing on whether his waiver, and corresponding plea, was the result of duress, misrepresentation or fraud by the court or prosecutor (see CPL 440.10, subd 1, par [b]; 440.30) or a writ of habeas corpus for the same reasons (see Bellacosa, Practice Commentary, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 11 A, CPL 440.10, p 320). | 2 | 1984–1988 |
People v. Selikoff
green
2 sentences1988Finally, as with a waiver of the right to appellate review of suppression rulings, various safeguards ensure against abuse of the practice of conditioning sentencing agreements on an explicit waiver of the right to appeal: "For example, a court can reject a plea agreement which includes a waiver of the right to appeal if the waiver appears to be other than knowing, voluntary and intelligent (see People v Selikoff, 35 NY2d 227, 235 , cert den 419 US 1122 ), or a defendant can seek a postjudgment hearing on whether his waiver, and corresponding plea, was the result of duress, misrepresentation o 1984For example, a court can reject a plea agreement which includes a waiver of the right to appeal if the waiver appears to be other than knowing, voluntary and intelligent (see People v Selikoff, 35 NY2d 227, 235 , cert den 419 US 1122 ), or a defendant can seek a postjudgment hearing on whether his waiver, and corresponding plea, was the result of duress, misrepresentation or fraud by the court or prosecutor (see CPL 440.10, subd 1, par [b]; 440.30) or a writ of habeas corpus for the same reasons (see Bellacosa, Practice Commentary, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 11 A, CPL 440.10, p 320). | 2 | 1984–1988 |
People v. Rentz
green
1 sentence2017Contrary to the People’s contention that a defendant in New York must show actual bias in a postjudgment hearing, and the motion court’s related statement that there is no precedent in which the implied bias standard has been used to vacate a conviction through a postjudgment motion, in People v Rentz ( 67 NY2d 829 [1986]), the Court of Appeals granted a postjudgment motion to vacate a conviction on the ground of a juror’s implied bias. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Copeland
green
1 sentence1998Neither in his motion papers nor at the hearing did the defendant establish that the proffered evidence created the probability of a more favorable verdict or that the evidence could not have been produced by him at trial by the exercise of due diligence (see, People v Robinson, 211 AD2d 733 ; People v Boyette, 201 AD2d 490, 491 ; People v Johnson, 208 AD2d 562, 563 ; People v Copeland, 185 AD2d 280, 281-282 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
People v. Boyette
green
1 sentence1998Neither in his motion papers nor at the hearing did the defendant establish that the proffered evidence created the probability of a more favorable verdict or that the evidence could not have been produced by him at trial by the exercise of due diligence (see, People v Robinson, 211 AD2d 733 ; People v Boyette, 201 AD2d 490, 491 ; People v Johnson, 208 AD2d 562, 563 ; People v Copeland, 185 AD2d 280, 281-282 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
People v. Johnson
green
1 sentence1998Neither in his motion papers nor at the hearing did the defendant establish that the proffered evidence created the probability of a more favorable verdict or that the evidence could not have been produced by him at trial by the exercise of due diligence (see, People v Robinson, 211 AD2d 733 ; People v Boyette, 201 AD2d 490, 491 ; People v Johnson, 208 AD2d 562, 563 ; People v Copeland, 185 AD2d 280, 281-282 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
People v. Patterson
green
1 sentence1998Neither in his motion papers nor at the hearing did the defendant establish that the proffered evidence created the probability of a more favorable verdict or that the evidence could not have been produced by him at trial by the exercise of due diligence (see, People v Robinson, 211 AD2d 733 ; People v Boyette, 201 AD2d 490, 491 ; People v Johnson, 208 AD2d 562, 563 ; People v Copeland, 185 AD2d 280, 281-282 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
1 sentence1996This case addresses one issue: assuming that, by pleading guilty, the defendant did not forfeit the right to assert a postjudgment claim premised on an alleged violation of Brady v Maryland ( 373 US 83 [1963]). 1 did the government’s undisclosure of information pertaining to the venal activity of a police officer who participated in the defendant’s arrest and testified in a Mapp hearing taint the guilty plea and violate Brady? | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Satterfield
green
1 sentence1990(See, People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796, 799 ; CPL 440.30 [2].) The Trial Assistant’s denial, of record, that defendant’s daughter, the mother of the victim, communicated the so-called exculpatory information to him was conclusive with respect to the claim. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
People v. Jandrew
green
1 sentence1988Finally, as with a waiver of the right to appellate review of suppression rulings, various safeguards ensure against abuse of the practice of conditioning sentencing agreements on an explicit waiver of the right to appeal: "For example, a court can reject a plea agreement which includes a waiver of the right to appeal if the waiver appears to be other than knowing, voluntary and intelligent (see People v Selikoff, 35 NY2d 227, 235 , cert den 419 US 1122 ), or a defendant can seek a postjudgment hearing on whether his waiver, and corresponding plea, was the result of duress, misrepresentation o | 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.