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.
6 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1969–2006 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. Spotfordgreen2 sentences2006Defendants generally have a right to be present during Ventimiglia hearings or sidebar conferences because such a Ventimiglia hearing or sidebar conference “is an ancillary hearing [or sidebar conference] at which a defendant has the right to be present when he may have ‘something valuable to contribute’ ” (People v Rodriguez, 273 AD2d 415, 415-416 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 907 , 96 NY2d 867 [2000]; see People v Spotford, 85 NY2d 593, 596-597 [1995]). 2000In People v Spotford ( 85 NY2d 593 ), for example, the Ventimiglia hearing involved four uncharged crimes dating back to 1981 and the defendant was in the best position to deny or controvert the allegations. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Sanchezgreen1 sentence2006We conclude that defendant’s right to be present was not violated in this case because the only issue discussed was whether the testimony was more prejudicial than probative, and thus there was no potential for meaningful participation on defendant’s part (see Rodriguez, 273 AD2d at 415-416 ; see also People v Sanchez, 213 AD2d 566, 567-568 [1995], lv denied 86 NY2d 784 [1995]; cf. People v Sanchez, 209 AD2d 1012 [1994]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Reevesgreen2 sentences2006Defendants generally have a right to be present during Ventimiglia hearings or sidebar conferences because such a Ventimiglia hearing or sidebar conference “is an ancillary hearing [or sidebar conference] at which a defendant has the right to be present when he may have ‘something valuable to contribute’ ” (People v Rodriguez, 273 AD2d 415, 415-416 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 907 , 96 NY2d 867 [2000]; see People v Spotford, 85 NY2d 593, 596-597 [1995]). 2006We conclude that defendant’s right to be present was not violated in this case because the only issue discussed was whether the testimony was more prejudicial than probative, and thus there was no potential for meaningful participation on defendant’s part (see Rodriguez, 273 AD2d at 415-416 ; see also People v Sanchez, 213 AD2d 566, 567-568 [1995], lv denied 86 NY2d 784 [1995]; cf. People v Sanchez, 209 AD2d 1012 [1994]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Romangreen1 sentence2001Defendants are likewise unable to demonstrate that they could have potentially contributed to the narrow issue addressed at the ancillary inquiry involving the second juror (see, People v Roman, supra, at 26-27; People v Sprowal, supra, at 118 ; People v Mullen, supra, at 6). | 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. Sanchez
neutral
1 sentence2006We conclude that defendant’s right to be present was not violated in this case because the only issue discussed was whether the testimony was more prejudicial than probative, and thus there was no potential for meaningful participation on defendant’s part (see Rodriguez, 273 AD2d at 415-416 ; see also People v Sanchez, 213 AD2d 566, 567-568 [1995], lv denied 86 NY2d 784 [1995]; cf. People v Sanchez, 209 AD2d 1012 [1994]). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
People v. Sprowal
green
1 sentence2001Defendants are likewise unable to demonstrate that they could have potentially contributed to the narrow issue addressed at the ancillary inquiry involving the second juror (see, People v Roman, supra, at 26-27; People v Sprowal, supra, at 118 ; People v Mullen, supra, at 6). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Brophy v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
neutral
1 sentence2001Respondents, however, are not thereby excused from the ancillary requirement that a motion to dismiss for lack of proper service be made within 60 days after serving the pleading which preserves the objection (see, Matter of Brookview Apts. v Stuhlman, 278 AD2d 351 [where taxpayer does not timely serve the petition on a school district, the taxing authority may move to dismiss the proceeding if it raises the issue in its answer or makes a timely motion]). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
People v. Morales
green
1 sentence2000A Ventimiglia hearing (People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350 ) is an ancillary hearing at which a defendant has the right to be present when he may have “something valuable to contribute” (People v Morales, 80 NY2d 450, 456 ). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
People v. Ventimiglia
green
1 sentence2000A Ventimiglia hearing (People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350 ) is an ancillary hearing at which a defendant has the right to be present when he may have “something valuable to contribute” (People v Morales, 80 NY2d 450, 456 ). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Baker v. McGinnis
green
1 sentence1982Although the County contends that plaintiffs should have requested the relief sought here in the Federal court, a counterclaim seeking such a declaration might not have met with much success: the construction of a State statute is deemed by the Federal courts an issue for the State courts since the question of legislative intent does not present a Federal constitutional question (Baker v McGinnis, 286 F Supp 280 ) and the Federal courts will exercise ancillary jurisdiction only where the ancillary claim is logically related, in terms of factual and legal issues presented, to the main action (s | 1 | 1982–1982 |
In re Myles
neutral
1 sentence1969Immediately after the trial and pursuant to a petition previously served upon respondent’s special guardian, an ancillary hearing on the issues raised in the petition was conducted (see Matter of Myles, 57 Misc 2d 101 ). | 1 | 1969–1969 |
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.