defendant requested hearing (New York) · Go Syfert
← New York issues

defendant requested hearing in New York

8 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1993–2023 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.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
People v. Almodovargreen
ny · 1984 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
1 sentence

2020Unlike the defendant in Almodovar, who properly received a temporary and lawful possession instruction but also sought a justification defense to criminal possession (see 62 NY2d at 129 [the defendant requested an instruction that “lawful possession includes possession for the purpose of self-defense”]), Mr. Williams did not seek a jury instruction on justification as a defense to criminal possession, and his justification defense to the shooting was resolved in his favor by the jury and is not at issue here.

11
People v. Tzitzikalakisgreen
ny · 2007 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
1 sentence

2016However, as the People correctly concede, since the defendant requested a hearing on the proper amount of restitution, the County Court erred failing to hold such a hearing (see Penal Law § 60.27 [2]; People v Tzitzikalakis, 8 NY3d 217, 221 [2007]; People v Consalvo, 89 NY2d 140, 144 [1996]).

11
People v. Consalvogreen
ny · 1996 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
1 sentence

2016However, as the People correctly concede, since the defendant requested a hearing on the proper amount of restitution, the County Court erred failing to hold such a hearing (see Penal Law § 60.27 [2]; People v Tzitzikalakis, 8 NY3d 217, 221 [2007]; People v Consalvo, 89 NY2d 140, 144 [1996]).

11
People v. Wallgreen
nyappdiv · 2013 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
2 sentences

2016The defendant requested that the hearing be conducted in his absence, and his attorney, who represented him at the hearing, did not object to conducting the hearing in the defendant’s absence (see People v Sorto, 124 AD3d 744 [2015]; People v Wall, 112 AD3d 900, 901 [2013]).

2016Accordingly, the defendant forfeited his right to be present at the hearing (see People v Sorto, 124 AD3d at 744 ; People v Wall, 112 AD3d at 901 ).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (9)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Lambert green
nyappdiv · 1995
1 sentence

2023Application of this standard for when a restitution hearing is triggered is well-illustrated by People v Lambert ( 221 AD2d 1015 ).

12023–2023
People v. Sorto green
nyappdiv · 2015
2 sentences

2016The defendant requested that the hearing be conducted in his absence, and his attorney, who represented him at the hearing, did not object to conducting the hearing in the defendant’s absence (see People v Sorto, 124 AD3d 744 [2015]; People v Wall, 112 AD3d 900, 901 [2013]).

2016Accordingly, the defendant forfeited his right to be present at the hearing (see People v Sorto, 124 AD3d at 744 ; People v Wall, 112 AD3d at 901 ).

12016–2016
People v. Rodriguez green
ny · 1988
1 sentence

2010While the Supreme Court summarized its off-the-record inquiry with juror No. 1 in open court, on this record it cannot be determined whether its inquiry was probing and tactful (see People v Rodriguez, 71 NY2d at 219 ).

12010–2010
People v. Buford green
ny · 1987
1 sentence

2010In this case, although the Supreme Court acknowledged that juror No. 1 should be questioned, and the defendant requested an inquiry, the Supreme Court failed to follow the guidelines set forth in People v Buford ( 69 NY2d at 299 ) to determine whether the juror was “grossly unqualified.” Furthermore, contrary to the People’s contention, the Supreme Court’s post-verdict, off-the-record questioning of juror No. 1 did not follow the Buford guidelines or cure its initial error.

12010–2010
People v. Sumpter green
nycrimct · 1998
1 sentence

2000Based thereon the court finds that the People have established by clear and convincing evidence both the fact of the rape and that the defendant was armed with a dangerous instrument (see, People v Sumpter, 177 Misc 2d 492 ; Guidelines, at 6 [usual rules of accessorial liability obtain]), as well as that defendant’s criminal history includes a recent prior violent felony.

12000–2000
People v. Higdon green
nyappdiv · 1990
1 sentence

1998Before summations, the defendant requested that the defense of justification pursuant to Penal Law § 35.15 (2) (a) be charged (see, People v Thomas, 232 AD2d 667 , lv dismissed 89 NY2d 930 ), and that the presumption in Penal Law § 265.15 (4) not be charged (see, People v Higdon, 162 AD2d 957 , lv denied 76 NY2d 893 ).

11998–1998
People v. Thomas neutral
nyappdiv · 1996
1 sentence

1998Before summations, the defendant requested that the defense of justification pursuant to Penal Law § 35.15 (2) (a) be charged (see, People v Thomas, 232 AD2d 667 , lv dismissed 89 NY2d 930 ), and that the presumption in Penal Law § 265.15 (4) not be charged (see, People v Higdon, 162 AD2d 957 , lv denied 76 NY2d 893 ).

11998–1998
People v. Claudio green
nyappdiv · 1987
1 sentence

1993However, citing Gallagher, People v Claudio (supra) determined that it was reversible error for the trial court to refuse to charge manslaughter, second degree, as a lesser included offense of intentional murder, while charging that crime as a lesser included offense of depraved indifference murder, where the defendant requested such an instruction and its submission was legally warranted. 2 The situation in this case parallels Claudio .

11993–1993
People v. Gallagher green
ny · 1987
1 sentence

1993The second reason is that the concurring opinion in People v Gallagher (supra) sanctioned such instructions.

11993–1993

Where else courts name it

MA 32 (1977–2024) CA 23 (1912–2026) KS 20 (1901–2022) TX 18 (1977–2025) MS 12 (1913–2024) TN 9 (1998–2016) MO 9 (1904–2016) CT 9 (1972–2017) NY 8 (1993–2023) IA 8 (1916–2024) IL 8 (1901–2021) NM 8 (1972–2026) FL 7 (1916–2013) AZ 7 (1969–2009) OK 6 (1925–1998) NC 6 (1996–2024) WA 6 (1985–2013) CO 5 (1981–2020) OR 4 (1959–1998) MT 3 (1987–2025) NV 3 (1914–1997) NJ 3 (1908–2021) LA 3 (2006–2014) UT 3 (1980–2003) MD 3 (1991–2012) NE 3 (1934–2000) OH 2 (2017–2025) MI 2 (1977–1990) GA 2 (1917–2025) WI 2 (1984–1985) HI 2 (2011–2012) VA 2 (1997–2004) ND 2 (1927–2002) PA 2 (2006–2012)

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