7 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2026 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. Allengreen1 sentence2026The People chose not to supply any lawful reason for the stop and should not now be able to have a belated chance to change course.</p> <p>In addition, even were one to conclude that the consequence of one or both of Criminal Court's errors should be a remittal for a hearing, in this case both the passage of time and the minor nature of the offense involved mean that we should dismiss the indictment, which contained no other charges beyond the unlicensed driving allegations (<i>People v Burwell</i>, 53 NY2d 849, 851 [1981 mem]; <i>cf. People v Allen</i>, 39 NY2d 916, 917 [1976];<i> see</i> <i> | 1 | 1 |
People v. Burwellgreen1 sentence2026The People chose not to supply any lawful reason for the stop and should not now be able to have a belated chance to change course.</p> <p>In addition, even were one to conclude that the consequence of one or both of Criminal Court's errors should be a remittal for a hearing, in this case both the passage of time and the minor nature of the offense involved mean that we should dismiss the indictment, which contained no other charges beyond the unlicensed driving allegations (<i>People v Burwell</i>, 53 NY2d 849, 851 [1981 mem]; <i>cf. People v Allen</i>, 39 NY2d 916, 917 [1976];<i> see</i> <i> | 1 | 1 |
People v. LaFontainegreen1 sentence2020Inasmuch as there is no indication in the record that the court ruled on that request, we direct the court on remittal to rule on defendant's request for substitution of counsel ( see People v Morris , 176 AD3d 1635 , 1636 [4th Dept 2019]; see generally People v LaFontaine , 92 NY2d 470, 474 [1998], rearg denied 93 NY2d 849 [1999]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Paynegreen1 sentence2019We conclude that this was sufficient to satisfy the People's "quite minimal" burden of providing a race-neutral reason for striking the juror ( People v Payne , 88 NY2d 172, 183 [1996]; see People v Grant , 128 AD3d 1088, 1090 [2d Dept 2015]; People v Ramos , 124 AD3d 1286, 1287 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1076 [2015], reconsideration denied 26 NY3d 933 [2015]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Ramosgreen1 sentence2019We conclude that this was sufficient to satisfy the People's "quite minimal" burden of providing a race-neutral reason for striking the juror ( People v Payne , 88 NY2d 172, 183 [1996]; see People v Grant , 128 AD3d 1088, 1090 [2d Dept 2015]; People v Ramos , 124 AD3d 1286, 1287 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1076 [2015], reconsideration denied 26 NY3d 933 [2015]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Grantgreen1 sentence2019We conclude that this was sufficient to satisfy the People's "quite minimal" burden of providing a race-neutral reason for striking the juror ( People v Payne , 88 NY2d 172, 183 [1996]; see People v Grant , 128 AD3d 1088, 1090 [2d Dept 2015]; People v Ramos , 124 AD3d 1286, 1287 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1076 [2015], reconsideration denied 26 NY3d 933 [2015]). | 1 | 1 |
In re Desirea F.green1 sentence2017The Court was advised at oral argument that the first time that the mother was permitted to speak with the children since October 2011 was almost five years later in Family Court in the summer of 2016, when the children apparently appeared telephonically for the required age-appropriate consultation at the remittal hearing following this Court’s February 2016 order (Matter of Desirea F. [Angela F], 136 AD3d at 1076-1077). | 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. Galindo
neutral
1 sentence2026The People chose not to supply any lawful reason for the stop and should not now be able to have a belated chance to change course.</p> <p>In addition, even were one to conclude that the consequence of one or both of Criminal Court's errors should be a remittal for a hearing, in this case both the passage of time and the minor nature of the offense involved mean that we should dismiss the indictment, which contained no other charges beyond the unlicensed driving allegations (<i>People v Burwell</i>, 53 NY2d 849, 851 [1981 mem]; <i>cf. People v Allen</i>, 39 NY2d 916, 917 [1976];<i> see</i> <i> | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Steadman
green
1 sentence1994Finally, we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 ), that the prosecutor met his obligation under Brady v Maryland ( 373 US 83 ) to disclose falsehoods in witnesses’ testimony regarding promises of leniency (see, People v Stead-man, 82 NY2d 1 ), and that the sentence imposed is not unduly harsh or severe. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
1 sentence1994Finally, we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 ), that the prosecutor met his obligation under Brady v Maryland ( 373 US 83 ) to disclose falsehoods in witnesses’ testimony regarding promises of leniency (see, People v Stead-man, 82 NY2d 1 ), and that the sentence imposed is not unduly harsh or severe. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
People v. Bleakley
green
1 sentence1994Finally, we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 ), that the prosecutor met his obligation under Brady v Maryland ( 373 US 83 ) to disclose falsehoods in witnesses’ testimony regarding promises of leniency (see, People v Stead-man, 82 NY2d 1 ), and that the sentence imposed is not unduly harsh or severe. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
People v. Burts
neutral
1 sentence1990Memorandum: The evidence supports the court’s finding, following the remittal hearing (see, People v Burts, 156 AD2d 1010 ), that Paula Toms’ in-court identification of defendant was based upon a source independent of any taint from a suggestive photo array. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
People v. Taranovich
green
1 sentence1990Turning next to defendant’s claim that he was deprived of his constitutional right to a speedy trial, we conclude that based upon the circumstances in this case, there has been no violation of defendant’s constitutional rights (see generally, People v Taranovich, 37 NY2d 442, 455 ). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
People v. James
green
1 sentence1990Since Toms’ testimony was sufficient to support defendant’s convictions we need not decide whether the identification testimony at trial of Mr. Young, who was deceased at the time of the hearing, was admissible on the remittal hearing (see, CPL 670.10; cf., People v James, 67 NY2d 662, 664 ). | 1 | 1990–1990 |