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.
8 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1975–2026 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. Wrightgreen2 sentences2013Furthermore, the defendant’s response to the question posed by defense counsel was not misleading with respect to his prior conduct, as his prior conduct merely involved allegations of statements made by the defendant, not inappropriate sexual conduct (see People v Wright, 260 AD2d 935, 937-938 [1999]; People v Grant, 234 AD2d at 476 ). 2013Furthermore, the defendant’s response to the question posed by defense counsel was not misleading with respect to his prior conduct, as his prior conduct merely involved allegations of statements made by the defendant, not inappropriate sexual conduct (see People v Wright, 260 AD2d 935, 937-938 [1999]; People v Grant, 234 AD2d at 476 ). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Mateogreen2 sentences2026In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15[5]; People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342, 348), we nevertheless accord great deference to the fact-finder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe their demeanor ( see People v Mateo , 2 NY3d 383, 410; People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d 490, 495). 2026In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15[5]; People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342, 348), we nevertheless accord great deference to the fact-finder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe their demeanor ( see People v Mateo , 2 NY3d 383, 410; People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d 490, 495). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Danielsongreen2 sentences2026In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15[5]; People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342, 348), we nevertheless accord great deference to the fact-finder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe their demeanor ( see People v Mateo , 2 NY3d 383, 410; People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d 490, 495). 2026In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15[5]; People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342, 348), we nevertheless accord great deference to the fact-finder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe their demeanor ( see People v Mateo , 2 NY3d 383, 410; People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d 490, 495). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bleakleygreen2 sentences2026In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15[5]; People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342, 348), we nevertheless accord great deference to the fact-finder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe their demeanor ( see People v Mateo , 2 NY3d 383, 410; People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d 490, 495). 2026In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15[5]; People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342, 348), we nevertheless accord great deference to the fact-finder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe their demeanor ( see People v Mateo , 2 NY3d 383, 410; People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d 490, 495). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Dirschbergergreen2 sentences2022Evaluating prospective juror No. 295's response in light of both defense counsel's ambiguous question as to whether "something must have happened that's bad" and the responses of this and other prospective jurors that they simply believed that an accusation was made and that their role as a juror would be to determine whether defendant was in fact guilty of the crimes ( see People v Dirschberger , 185 AD3d 1224, 1226-1227 [2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 1056 [2021]; see generally People v Warrington , 28 NY3d at 1120 ), we conclude that prospective juror No. 295's statement did not raise a serious d 2022Evaluating prospective juror No. 295's response in light of both defense counsel's ambiguous question as to whether "something must have happened that's bad" and the responses of this and other prospective jurors that they simply believed that an accusation was made and that their role as a juror would be to determine whether defendant was in fact guilty of the crimes ( see People v Dirschberger , 185 AD3d 1224, 1226-1227 [2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 1056 [2021]; see generally People v Warrington , 28 NY3d at 1120 ), we conclude that prospective juror No. 295's statement did not raise a serious d | 1 | 1 |
People v. Riveragreen1 sentence2022Evaluating prospective juror No. 295's response in light of both defense counsel's ambiguous question as to whether "something must have happened that's bad" and the responses of this and other prospective jurors that they simply believed that an accusation was made and that their role as a juror would be to determine whether defendant was in fact guilty of the crimes ( see People v Dirschberger , 185 AD3d 1224, 1226-1227 [2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 1056 [2021]; see generally People v Warrington , 28 NY3d at 1120 ), we conclude that prospective juror No. 295's statement did not raise a serious d | 1 | 1 |
People v. Warringtongreen1 sentence2022Evaluating prospective juror No. 295's response in light of both defense counsel's ambiguous question as to whether "something must have happened that's bad" and the responses of this and other prospective jurors that they simply believed that an accusation was made and that their role as a juror would be to determine whether defendant was in fact guilty of the crimes ( see People v Dirschberger , 185 AD3d 1224, 1226-1227 [2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 1056 [2021]; see generally People v Warrington , 28 NY3d at 1120 ), we conclude that prospective juror No. 295's statement did not raise a serious d | 1 | 1 |
Bernstein v. Bodeangreen2 sentences1988Here, the question posed by defense counsel to the panel members, "what was the basis for your decision?”, was the very question held to be proper in Bernstein v Bodean (supra, at 524). 1988It was proper because it inquired into the "medical bases on which and the reasoning processes by which the panel and its individual members reached * * * conclusions” and it was designed to elicit information that would reasonably assist the jury "in judging the significance and probative worth properly to be accorded the panel’s recommendation.” (Bernstein v Bodean, supra, at 528.) Although plaintiffs’ counsel objected to the question, he did not object to the answer and, thus, the issue of the admissibility of the answer was not preserved for appellate review. | 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. Grant
green
2 sentences2013Furthermore, the defendant’s response to the question posed by defense counsel was not misleading with respect to his prior conduct, as his prior conduct merely involved allegations of statements made by the defendant, not inappropriate sexual conduct (see People v Wright, 260 AD2d 935, 937-938 [1999]; People v Grant, 234 AD2d at 476 ). 2013Furthermore, the defendant’s response to the question posed by defense counsel was not misleading with respect to his prior conduct, as his prior conduct merely involved allegations of statements made by the defendant, not inappropriate sexual conduct (see People v Wright, 260 AD2d 935, 937-938 [1999]; People v Grant, 234 AD2d at 476 ). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Mancusi v. Stubbs
green
2 sentences1975(Mancusi v. Stubbs, 408 U. S. 204, 216 ; Dutton v. Evans, 400 U. S. 74, 89 .) Thus, the question posed is whether defense counsel had an opportunity to adequately cross-examine the witness at the preliminary hearing. 1975(Mancusi v Stubbs, 408 US 204, 216 ; Dutton v Evans, 400 US 74, 89 .) "Thus, the question posed is whether defense counsel had an opportunity to adequately cross-examine”. | 2 | 1975–1975 |
Dutton v. Evans
green
2 sentences1975(Mancusi v. Stubbs, 408 U. S. 204, 216 ; Dutton v. Evans, 400 U. S. 74, 89 .) Thus, the question posed is whether defense counsel had an opportunity to adequately cross-examine the witness at the preliminary hearing. 1975(Mancusi v Stubbs, 408 US 204, 216 ; Dutton v Evans, 400 US 74, 89 .) "Thus, the question posed is whether defense counsel had an opportunity to adequately cross-examine”. | 2 | 1975–1975 |
People v. Pabon
green
1 sentence2022Evaluating prospective juror No. 295's response in light of both defense counsel's ambiguous question as to whether "something must have happened that's bad" and the responses of this and other prospective jurors that they simply believed that an accusation was made and that their role as a juror would be to determine whether defendant was in fact guilty of the crimes ( see People v Dirschberger , 185 AD3d 1224, 1226-1227 [2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 1056 [2021]; see generally People v Warrington , 28 NY3d at 1120 ), we conclude that prospective juror No. 295's statement did not raise a serious d | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Roundtree
green
1 sentence2022Evaluating prospective juror No. 295's response in light of both defense counsel's ambiguous question as to whether "something must have happened that's bad" and the responses of this and other prospective jurors that they simply believed that an accusation was made and that their role as a juror would be to determine whether defendant was in fact guilty of the crimes ( see People v Dirschberger , 185 AD3d 1224, 1226-1227 [2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 1056 [2021]; see generally People v Warrington , 28 NY3d at 1120 ), we conclude that prospective juror No. 295's statement did not raise a serious d | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Claudio v. City of New York
green
1 sentence2002The court immediately struck the offending testimony and provided curative instructions that were sufficient to prevent any prejudice (see, People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865 ; People v Bryant, 280 AD2d 403 , lv denied 96 NY2d 826 ). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
People v. Santiago
green
1 sentence2002The court immediately struck the offending testimony and provided curative instructions that were sufficient to prevent any prejudice (see, People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865 ; People v Bryant, 280 AD2d 403 , lv denied 96 NY2d 826 ). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Pointer v. Texas
green
1 sentence1975(People v Simmons, 36 NY2d 126, 130 , supra.) In the Pointer case ( 380 US 400, 407 , supra), where the court excluded the prior testimony, it stated: "The case before us would be quite a different one had * * * [testimony] been taken at a full-fledged hearing at which petitioner had been represented by counsel who had been given a complete and adequate opportunity to cross-examine.” The court therein resolved the issue on whether or not there was a complete and adequate opportunity to cross-examine. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
People v. Simmons
green
1 sentence1975(People v Simmons, 36 NY2d 126, 130 , supra.) In the Pointer case ( 380 US 400, 407 , supra), where the court excluded the prior testimony, it stated: "The case before us would be quite a different one had * * * [testimony] been taken at a full-fledged hearing at which petitioner had been represented by counsel who had been given a complete and adequate opportunity to cross-examine.” The court therein resolved the issue on whether or not there was a complete and adequate opportunity to cross-examine. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.