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.
9 New York opinions name it 1 courts 1996–2025 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. Cabangreen2 sentences2016Such testimony would not have changed the outcome of the suppression hearing, and there can be no denial of effective assistance of counsel arising from defense counsel’s failure to make an “argument that has little or no chance of success” (People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005] [internal quotation marks omitted]). 2016Such testimony would not have changed the outcome of the suppression hearing, and there can be no denial of effective assistance of counsel arising from defense counsel’s failure to make an “argument that has little or no chance of success” (People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005] [internal quotation marks omitted]). | 3 | 3 |
People v. Wicksgreen2 sentences2012Moreover, without meaningful representation, any conclusions drawn from the record are speculative (accord People v Hodge, 53 NY2d 313, 320-321 [1981]; see also People v Wicks, 76 NY2d 128, 132 [1990]; People v Felder, 47 NY2d at 296 ). 2011(Wardlaw, 6 NY3d at 559 .) However, the Court dispensed with automatic remand for a de novo hearing where “it is clear, beyond reasonable doubt, that the outcome of the suppression hearing [at which the violation occurred] could not have affected the outcome of the trial.” (Wardlaw, 6 NY3d at 558 .) Thus, the Court held that deprivation of counsel at a pretrial hearing was subject to a harmless error analysis. {Id. at 559 [remedy to which a defendant is entitled depends on what impact if any, the tainted proceeding had on the case as a whole], citing People v Wicks, 76 NY2d 128 [1990] [harmles | 2 | 3 |
People v. Hodgegreen2 sentences2012Moreover, without meaningful representation, any conclusions drawn from the record are speculative (accord People v Hodge, 53 NY2d 313, 320-321 [1981]; see also People v Wicks, 76 NY2d 128, 132 [1990]; People v Felder, 47 NY2d at 296 ). 2012Moreover, without meaningful representation, any conclusions drawn from the record are speculative (accord People v Hodge, 53 NY2d 313, 320-321 [1981]; see also People v Wicks, 76 NY2d 128, 132 [1990]; People v Felder, 47 NY2d at 296 ). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Casianogreen2 sentences2012In light of such deficiencies, it is not possible to predict the outcome of the suppression hearing from a review of the record, for, as it has been recognized in another context, review by this Court is no substitute for the single-minded advocacy of counsel (see People v Casiano, 67 NY2d 906, 907 [1986]). 2012In light of such deficiencies, it is not possible to predict the outcome of the suppression hearing from a review of the record, for, as it has been recognized in another context, review by this Court is no substitute for the single-minded advocacy of counsel (see People v Casiano, 67 NY2d 906, 907 [1986]). | 2 | 2 |
The People v. Daniel A. Ludwiggreen2 sentences2025Defendant has not shown that counsel's failure to object to admission of a prior consistent statement by the detective fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, or that it deprived defendant of a fair trial or affected the outcome of the suppression hearing ( see People v Ludwig , 24 NY3d 221, 230 [2014]). 2025Defendant has not shown that counsel's failure to object to admission of a prior consistent statement by the detective fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, or that it deprived defendant of a fair trial or affected the outcome of the suppression hearing ( see People v Ludwig , 24 NY3d 221, 230 [2014]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Narayangreen2 sentences2011(People v Narayan, 54 NY2d 106, 112 [1981] [where defense counsel was ordered not to communicate with defendant while the defendant was testifying at trial].) The Court stated, “[W]e find no justification for departing from the requirement that trial court error (here interference with [right to counsel]) must be brought to the court’s attention by protest timely made, at least where counsel acting on defendant’s behalf is present and available to register a protest and where the error if called to the court’s attention is readily susceptible to effective remedy.” (Narayan, 54 NY2d at 112 [emp 2011(People v Narayan, 54 NY2d 106, 112 [1981] [where defense counsel was ordered not to communicate with defendant while the defendant was testifying at trial].) The Court stated, “[W]e find no justification for departing from the requirement that trial court error (here interference with [right to counsel]) must be brought to the court’s attention by protest timely made, at least where counsel acting on defendant’s behalf is present and available to register a protest and where the error if called to the court’s attention is readily susceptible to effective remedy.” (Narayan, 54 NY2d at 112 [emp | 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. Felder
green
2 sentences2012Moreover, without meaningful representation, any conclusions drawn from the record are speculative (accord People v Hodge, 53 NY2d 313, 320-321 [1981]; see also People v Wicks, 76 NY2d 128, 132 [1990]; People v Felder, 47 NY2d at 296 ). 2012Moreover, without meaningful representation, any conclusions drawn from the record are speculative (accord People v Hodge, 53 NY2d 313, 320-321 [1981]; see also People v Wicks, 76 NY2d 128, 132 [1990]; People v Felder, 47 NY2d at 296 ). | 2 | 2012–2012 |
People v. Wardlaw
green
2 sentences2011(Wardlaw, 6 NY3d at 559 .) However, the Court dispensed with automatic remand for a de novo hearing where “it is clear, beyond reasonable doubt, that the outcome of the suppression hearing [at which the violation occurred] could not have affected the outcome of the trial.” (Wardlaw, 6 NY3d at 558 .) Thus, the Court held that deprivation of counsel at a pretrial hearing was subject to a harmless error analysis. {Id. at 559 [remedy to which a defendant is entitled depends on what impact if any, the tainted proceeding had on the case as a whole], citing People v Wicks, 76 NY2d 128 [1990] [harmles 2011(Wardlaw, 6 NY3d at 559 .) However, the Court dispensed with automatic remand for a de novo hearing where “it is clear, beyond reasonable doubt, that the outcome of the suppression hearing [at which the violation occurred] could not have affected the outcome of the trial.” (Wardlaw, 6 NY3d at 558 .) Thus, the Court held that deprivation of counsel at a pretrial hearing was subject to a harmless error analysis. {Id. at 559 [remedy to which a defendant is entitled depends on what impact if any, the tainted proceeding had on the case as a whole], citing People v Wicks, 76 NY2d 128 [1990] [harmles | 1 | 2011–2011 |
People v. Perkins
green
1 sentence2007The court properly denied defendant’s request for new counsel (see e.g. 0People v Pitman, 25 AD3d 361 [2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 816 [2006]). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
People v. Pitman
neutral
1 sentence2007The court properly denied defendant’s request for new counsel (see e.g. 0People v Pitman, 25 AD3d 361 [2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 816 [2006]). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
People v. Hobot
green
1 sentence1996Nonetheless, based upon our review of the record we conclude that the error had no affect on the outcome of the suppression hearing, did not contribute to defendant’s plea (see, People v Grant, 45 NY2d 366, 379 ) and provides an insufficient basis for the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel (see, People v Hobot, 84 NY2d 1021 ; People v English, 215 AD2d 871, 873 , lvs denied 86 NY2d 793 , 87 NY2d 900 ). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. English
green
1 sentence1996Nonetheless, based upon our review of the record we conclude that the error had no affect on the outcome of the suppression hearing, did not contribute to defendant’s plea (see, People v Grant, 45 NY2d 366, 379 ) and provides an insufficient basis for the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel (see, People v Hobot, 84 NY2d 1021 ; People v English, 215 AD2d 871, 873 , lvs denied 86 NY2d 793 , 87 NY2d 900 ). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Grant
green
1 sentence1996Nonetheless, based upon our review of the record we conclude that the error had no affect on the outcome of the suppression hearing, did not contribute to defendant’s plea (see, People v Grant, 45 NY2d 366, 379 ) and provides an insufficient basis for the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel (see, People v Hobot, 84 NY2d 1021 ; People v English, 215 AD2d 871, 873 , lvs denied 86 NY2d 793 , 87 NY2d 900 ). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.