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 1965–2023 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. Epsteingreen2 sentences2023The People were entitled to introduce the victim's grand jury testimony and her trial testimony from a codefendant's trial, along with the corroborative hearing and trial testimony of defendant's then-underage girlfriend and defendant's own statements of remorse, to establish clear and convincing evidence that defendant ran a prostitution ring, threatened the victim with a gun to get her to work for him as a prostitute, and raped the victim on multiple occasions ( see People v Sincerbeaux , 27 NY3d 683, 688 [2016]; People v Sanchez , 192 AD3d 409 , 410 [1st Dept 2021]; People v Epstein , 89 AD 2023The People were entitled to introduce the victim's grand jury testimony and her trial testimony from a codefendant's trial, along with the corroborative hearing and trial testimony of defendant's then-underage girlfriend and defendant's own statements of remorse, to establish clear and convincing evidence that defendant ran a prostitution ring, threatened the victim with a gun to get her to work for him as a prostitute, and raped the victim on multiple occasions ( see People v Sincerbeaux , 27 NY3d 683, 688 [2016]; People v Sanchez , 192 AD3d 409 , 410 [1st Dept 2021]; People v Epstein , 89 AD | 2 | 2 |
The People v. Dennis J. Sincerbeauxgreen2 sentences2023The People were entitled to introduce the victim's grand jury testimony and her trial testimony from a codefendant's trial, along with the corroborative hearing and trial testimony of defendant's then-underage girlfriend and defendant's own statements of remorse, to establish clear and convincing evidence that defendant ran a prostitution ring, threatened the victim with a gun to get her to work for him as a prostitute, and raped the victim on multiple occasions ( see People v Sincerbeaux , 27 NY3d 683, 688 [2016]; People v Sanchez , 192 AD3d 409 , 410 [1st Dept 2021]; People v Epstein , 89 AD 2023The People were entitled to introduce the victim's grand jury testimony and her trial testimony from a codefendant's trial, along with the corroborative hearing and trial testimony of defendant's then-underage girlfriend and defendant's own statements of remorse, to establish clear and convincing evidence that defendant ran a prostitution ring, threatened the victim with a gun to get her to work for him as a prostitute, and raped the victim on multiple occasions ( see People v Sincerbeaux , 27 NY3d 683, 688 [2016]; People v Sanchez , 192 AD3d 409 , 410 [1st Dept 2021]; People v Epstein , 89 AD | 2 | 2 |
People v. Sabellagreen1 sentence1984Moreover, the testimony of the three witnesses that defendant did in fact receive cash payments in the form of kickbacks may be considered corroborative of one another to the extent that they demonstrate that there were such transactions and, thus, that defendant’s statements were false (see People v Steiner, 77 AD2d 13 ; People v Skibinski, 55 AD2d 48 ; People v Calcante, 97 Misc 2d 593 ; cf. People v Sabella, 35 NY2d 158, 167-168). | 1 | 1 |
Dorsey v. Stategreen1 sentence1972See, also, Dorsey v. State ( 204 Ga. 345, 350 [1948]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. . Molineuxgreen1 sentence1965The corroborative factors included defendant’s contradictory statements; his employment, upon stopping his car to accost young girls on occasions before and after the crime, of the same subterfuges used to entice the complaining witness into his automobile (see People v. Molineux, 168 N. Y. 264, 293, 314 ); and the identification of the automobile itself. | 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. Skibinski
green
1 sentence1984Moreover, the testimony of the three witnesses that defendant did in fact receive cash payments in the form of kickbacks may be considered corroborative of one another to the extent that they demonstrate that there were such transactions and, thus, that defendant’s statements were false (see People v Steiner, 77 AD2d 13 ; People v Skibinski, 55 AD2d 48 ; People v Calcante, 97 Misc 2d 593 ; cf. People v Sabella, 35 NY2d 158, 167-168). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
People v. Steiner
green
1 sentence1984Moreover, the testimony of the three witnesses that defendant did in fact receive cash payments in the form of kickbacks may be considered corroborative of one another to the extent that they demonstrate that there were such transactions and, thus, that defendant’s statements were false (see People v Steiner, 77 AD2d 13 ; People v Skibinski, 55 AD2d 48 ; People v Calcante, 97 Misc 2d 593 ; cf. People v Sabella, 35 NY2d 158, 167-168). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
People v. Greenberger
neutral
1 sentence1984In order to establish the case of perjury against defendant the People were required to satisfy the corroborative requirement of section 210.50 of the Penal Law which provides that “[i]n any prosecution for perjury * * * falsity of a statement may not be established by the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness.” Because defendant was charged with peijury and not bribery the vendors are not his accomplices within the meaning of CPL 60.22 (see People v McAuliffe, 36 NY2d 820 ; cf. People v Greenberger, 96 AD2d 910 ). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
People v. McAuliffe
green
1 sentence1984In order to establish the case of perjury against defendant the People were required to satisfy the corroborative requirement of section 210.50 of the Penal Law which provides that “[i]n any prosecution for perjury * * * falsity of a statement may not be established by the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness.” Because defendant was charged with peijury and not bribery the vendors are not his accomplices within the meaning of CPL 60.22 (see People v McAuliffe, 36 NY2d 820 ; cf. People v Greenberger, 96 AD2d 910 ). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
People v. Calcante
neutral
1 sentence1984Moreover, the testimony of the three witnesses that defendant did in fact receive cash payments in the form of kickbacks may be considered corroborative of one another to the extent that they demonstrate that there were such transactions and, thus, that defendant’s statements were false (see People v Steiner, 77 AD2d 13 ; People v Skibinski, 55 AD2d 48 ; People v Calcante, 97 Misc 2d 593 ; cf. People v Sabella, 35 NY2d 158, 167-168). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
People v. St. John
green
1 sentence1982John, 74 AD2d 85, 88 , citing People v Bravender, 35 AD2d 1035 ). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
People v. Bravender
neutral
1 sentence1982John, 74 AD2d 85, 88 , citing People v Bravender, 35 AD2d 1035 ). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.