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 2003–2013 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. Quinonesgreen2 sentences2013Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court “did not follow the requisite three-step analysis when he raised a Batson challenge” (People v Collins, 63 AD3d 1609, 1610 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 795 [2009] ; see People v Robinson, 1 AD3d 985, 985-986 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 633 [2004], lv denied upon reconsideration 2 NY3d 805 [2004]). 2013Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court “did not follow the requisite three-step analysis when he raised a Batson challenge” (People v Collins, 63 AD3d 1609, 1610 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 795 [2009] ; see People v Robinson, 1 AD3d 985, 985-986 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 633 [2004], lv denied upon reconsideration 2 NY3d 805 [2004]). | 3 | 4 |
People v. Robinsongreen2 sentences2013Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court “did not follow the requisite three-step analysis when he raised a Batson challenge” (People v Collins, 63 AD3d 1609, 1610 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 795 [2009] ; see People v Robinson, 1 AD3d 985, 985-986 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 633 [2004], lv denied upon reconsideration 2 NY3d 805 [2004]). 2013Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court “did not follow the requisite three-step analysis when he raised a Batson challenge” (People v Collins, 63 AD3d 1609, 1610 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 795 [2009] ; see People v Robinson, 1 AD3d 985, 985-986 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 633 [2004], lv denied upon reconsideration 2 NY3d 805 [2004]). | 3 | 4 |
People v. Gonzalezgreen2 sentences2013Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court “did not follow the requisite three-step analysis when he raised a Batson challenge” (People v Collins, 63 AD3d 1609, 1610 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 795 [2009] ; see People v Robinson, 1 AD3d 985, 985-986 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 633 [2004], lv denied upon reconsideration 2 NY3d 805 [2004]). 2013Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court “did not follow the requisite three-step analysis when he raised a Batson challenge” (People v Collins, 63 AD3d 1609, 1610 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 795 [2009] ; see People v Robinson, 1 AD3d 985, 985-986 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 633 [2004], lv denied upon reconsideration 2 NY3d 805 [2004]). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Paynegreen2 sentences2010Although the court should have set forth its application of the three-step Batson inquiry in more explicit terms to make a “meaningful record” (People v Payne, 88 NY2d 172, 184 [1996]), “the actual conduct of the inquiry [is] . . . within the sound discretion ... of the . . . court[ ]” (People v Hameed, 88 NY2d 232, 237 [1996], cert denied 519 US 1065 [1997]), and the record establishes that the court properly conducted the requisite three-step inquiry. 2003At the outset, we note that the issue whether defendant established a prima facie case of discrimination under the first step of the analysis is moot because the court continued with the three-step analysis and ruled on the ultimate issues of purposeful discrimination and pretext (see People v Smocum, 99 NY2d 418, 422-423 [2003]; People v James, 99 NY2d 264, 270 [2002]; People v Payne, 88 NY2d 172, 181-182 [1996]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Jamesgreen2 sentences2006The issue whether the court ruled on the first step of the analysis by determining whether defendant established a prima facie case of discrimination is moot because the court ruled on the second and third steps of the analysis, i.e., whether the prosecutor provided race-neutral reasons for exercising a peremptory challenge with respect to an African-American juror and whether defendant met his “ultimate burden of persuading the court that the reasons were merely a pretext for intentional discrimination” (People v Smocum, 99 NY2d 418, 422 [2003]; see People v James, 99 NY2d 264, 270 [2002]). 2003At the outset, we note that the issue whether defendant established a prima facie case of discrimination under the first step of the analysis is moot because the court continued with the three-step analysis and ruled on the ultimate issues of purposeful discrimination and pretext (see People v Smocum, 99 NY2d 418, 422-423 [2003]; People v James, 99 NY2d 264, 270 [2002]; People v Payne, 88 NY2d 172, 181-182 [1996]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Smocumgreen2 sentences2006The issue whether the court ruled on the first step of the analysis by determining whether defendant established a prima facie case of discrimination is moot because the court ruled on the second and third steps of the analysis, i.e., whether the prosecutor provided race-neutral reasons for exercising a peremptory challenge with respect to an African-American juror and whether defendant met his “ultimate burden of persuading the court that the reasons were merely a pretext for intentional discrimination” (People v Smocum, 99 NY2d 418, 422 [2003]; see People v James, 99 NY2d 264, 270 [2002]). 2003At the outset, we note that the issue whether defendant established a prima facie case of discrimination under the first step of the analysis is moot because the court continued with the three-step analysis and ruled on the ultimate issues of purposeful discrimination and pretext (see People v Smocum, 99 NY2d 418, 422-423 [2003]; People v James, 99 NY2d 264, 270 [2002]; People v Payne, 88 NY2d 172, 181-182 [1996]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Hameedgreen1 sentence2010Although the court should have set forth its application of the three-step Batson inquiry in more explicit terms to make a “meaningful record” (People v Payne, 88 NY2d 172, 184 [1996]), “the actual conduct of the inquiry [is] . . . within the sound discretion ... of the . . . court[ ]” (People v Hameed, 88 NY2d 232, 237 [1996], cert denied 519 US 1065 [1997]), and the record establishes that the court properly conducted the requisite three-step inquiry. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Frasergreen1 sentence2010The implicit determination of the court “that defendant’s race-neutral reason for challenging the prospective juror[s] was pretextual is entitled to great deference on appeal . . . , particularly [because] the proffered reason was demeanor-based[ ] and . . . the totality of the Batson ruling establishes that[,] in making its determination^] the court employed its unique opportunity to view the [prospective jurors’] actual demeanor” (People v Fraser, 271 AD2d 205, 205 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 796 [2000]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Crawfordgreen1 sentence2003Defendant’s contention that Supreme Court did not follow the requisite three-step analysis when defendant raised a Batson challenge is not preserved for our review (see People v Parker, 304 AD2d 146, 156 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 585 [2003]; see also People v Crawford, 299 AD2d 848, 849 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 653 [2003]) and, in any event, is without merit. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Parkergreen1 sentence2003Defendant’s contention that Supreme Court did not follow the requisite three-step analysis when defendant raised a Batson challenge is not preserved for our review (see People v Parker, 304 AD2d 146, 156 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 585 [2003]; see also People v Crawford, 299 AD2d 848, 849 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 653 [2003]) and, in any event, is without merit. | 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. Covington
green
2 sentences2013Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court “did not follow the requisite three-step analysis when he raised a Batson challenge” (People v Collins, 63 AD3d 1609, 1610 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 795 [2009] ; see People v Robinson, 1 AD3d 985, 985-986 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 633 [2004], lv denied upon reconsideration 2 NY3d 805 [2004]). 2013Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court “did not follow the requisite three-step analysis when he raised a Batson challenge” (People v Collins, 63 AD3d 1609, 1610 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 795 [2009] ; see People v Robinson, 1 AD3d 985, 985-986 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 633 [2004], lv denied upon reconsideration 2 NY3d 805 [2004]). | 3 | 2013–2013 |
Robinson v. Nevada
green
1 sentence2010Although the court should have set forth its application of the three-step Batson inquiry in more explicit terms to make a “meaningful record” (People v Payne, 88 NY2d 172, 184 [1996]), “the actual conduct of the inquiry [is] . . . within the sound discretion ... of the . . . court[ ]” (People v Hameed, 88 NY2d 232, 237 [1996], cert denied 519 US 1065 [1997]), and the record establishes that the court properly conducted the requisite three-step inquiry. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
People v. Little
green
1 sentence2009We reject defendant’s further contention that the court erred in determining that the prosecutor’s explanation for exercising the peremptory challenge with respect to the prospective juror in question was race-neutral and not pretextual (see People v Lawrence, 23 AD3d 1039 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 835 [2006]). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
People v. Lawrence
green
1 sentence2009We reject defendant’s further contention that the court erred in determining that the prosecutor’s explanation for exercising the peremptory challenge with respect to the prospective juror in question was race-neutral and not pretextual (see People v Lawrence, 23 AD3d 1039 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 835 [2006]). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
People v. Wells
green
1 sentence2006We reject the contention of defendant that Supreme Court failed to engage in the requisite three-step analysis in ruling on his Batson challenge (see People v Wells, 7 NY3d 51 [2006]). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.