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.
7 New York opinions name it 1 courts 1989–2005 0 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. Turriagogreen1 sentence2005The defendant did not advance this argument before the hearing court and the hearing court did not expressly decide it (see GPL 470.05 [2]; People v Turriago, 90 NY2d 77, 83 [1997]). | 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. Burton
green
1 sentence2000The defendant’s contention that the People failed to demonstrate the existence of a reasonable suspicion to detain him pending further investigation is unpreserved for appellate review as the defendant’s argument before the hearing court was limited to the claim that he had been arrested without probable cause (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Santos, 86 NY2d 869 ; People v Burton, 194 AD2d 683 ). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
People v. Santos
green
1 sentence2000The defendant’s contention that the People failed to demonstrate the existence of a reasonable suspicion to detain him pending further investigation is unpreserved for appellate review as the defendant’s argument before the hearing court was limited to the claim that he had been arrested without probable cause (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Santos, 86 NY2d 869 ; People v Burton, 194 AD2d 683 ). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
People v. Ramirez-Portoreal
green
1 sentence1998In any event, pursuant to the “fellow officer” rule (see, People v Ramirez-Portoreal, 88 NY2d 99,113 ), the evidence established that the arrest of the defendant was lawful. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
People v. Volpe
green
1 sentence1998By failing to raise this argument before the hearing court, the defendant has not preserved it for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Volpe, 60 NY2d 803 ; People v Boyd, 244 AD2d 497 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
People v. Boyd
green
1 sentence1998By failing to raise this argument before the hearing court, the defendant has not preserved it for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Volpe, 60 NY2d 803 ; People v Boyd, 244 AD2d 497 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
People v. Cummings
neutral
1 sentence1995(See, People v Cummings, 207 AD2d 657 , lv denied 84 NY2d 1010 .) We also note that where the arrest and the search are nearly simultaneous, that the latter preceded the former is not material. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
People v. Amparo
green
1 sentence1994Moreover, because the defendant moved to suppress the identification evidence, proceeded with the Wade hearing, and obtained a determination on the motion from the hearing court, the defendant has waived any claim that the court should have precluded this testimony based upon untimely service of the final VDF (see, CPL 710.30 [3]; People v Amparo, 73 NY2d 728 ). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
People v. Udzinski
green
1 sentence1994Having failed to present this specific argument before the hearing court, however, the defendant did not preserve this claim for this Court’s review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245 ). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
People v. Tutt
green
1 sentence1992Because the defendant failed to raise this argument before the hearing court, we find that it is not properly before this court on appeal (see, People v Tutt, 38 NY2d 1011, 1012-1013 ; see generally, CPL 470.05 [2]). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
People v. Robinson
neutral
1 sentence1992In any event, based on our review of the testimony adduced at the hearing, we conclude that the hearing court correctly denied suppression (see, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 , 761; People v Robinson, 122 AD2d 173, 174 ). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
People v. Martin
neutral
1 sentence1989Initially, it must be noted that the defendant did not raise this argument before the hearing court and thus, it has not been preserved for appellate review (People v Martin, 135 AD2d 836 ). | 1 | 1989–1989 |