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 1 courts 2013–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cooper v. Robertsongreen2 sentences2014Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see Matter of Robert D., 69 AD3d 714, 716-717 [2010]), we conclude that the inconsistencies in the testimony presented a credibility question for the hearing court, which determination is entitled to great deference on appeal (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 , 761 [1977]; People v Bennett, 57 AD3d 912 [2008]), and we discern no basis on this record to disturb that determination. 2013Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see Matter of Robert D., 69 AD3d 714, 716-717 [2010]), we conclude that the inconsistencies in the testimony presented a credibility question for the hearing court, which determination is entitled to great deference on appeal (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 , 761 [1977]; People v Bennett, 57 AD3d 912 [2008]), and we discern no basis on this record to disturb that determination. | 3 | 3 |
People v. Grigoroffgreen1 sentence2016Although the defendant testified on his own behalf to the contrary, the conflicting testimony adduced at the suppression hearing presented a credibility question for the hearing court (see People v Grigoroff, 131 AD3d 541, 543 [2015]), and there is no basis in the record to disturb the hearing court’s determination to credit the police testimony (see People v Duggins, 1 AD3d 450 [2003], affd 3 NY3d 522 [2004]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Grangergreen1 sentence2015People v Granger, 122 AD3d 940, 940-941 [2014]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Reynosogreen1 sentence2014Moreover, contrary to the defendant’s further contention, his arrest in the hallway of a single room residence hotel did not violate his rights under Payton v New York ( 445 US 573 [1980]; see People v Reynoso, 2 NY3d 820, 821 [2004]; People v Minley, 68 NY2d 952, 953 [1986]; People v Sancho-Hemandez, 106 AD3d 841 , 841 [2013]; People v Cameron, 74 AD3d 1223, 1224 [2010]; People v Allen, 54 AD3d 868, 868-869 [2008]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Camerongreen1 sentence2014Moreover, contrary to the defendant’s further contention, his arrest in the hallway of a single room residence hotel did not violate his rights under Payton v New York ( 445 US 573 [1980]; see People v Reynoso, 2 NY3d 820, 821 [2004]; People v Minley, 68 NY2d 952, 953 [1986]; People v Sancho-Hemandez, 106 AD3d 841 , 841 [2013]; People v Cameron, 74 AD3d 1223, 1224 [2010]; People v Allen, 54 AD3d 868, 868-869 [2008]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Minleygreen1 sentence2014Moreover, contrary to the defendant’s further contention, his arrest in the hallway of a single room residence hotel did not violate his rights under Payton v New York ( 445 US 573 [1980]; see People v Reynoso, 2 NY3d 820, 821 [2004]; People v Minley, 68 NY2d 952, 953 [1986]; People v Sancho-Hemandez, 106 AD3d 841 , 841 [2013]; People v Cameron, 74 AD3d 1223, 1224 [2010]; People v Allen, 54 AD3d 868, 868-869 [2008]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Allengreen1 sentence2014Moreover, contrary to the defendant’s further contention, his arrest in the hallway of a single room residence hotel did not violate his rights under Payton v New York ( 445 US 573 [1980]; see People v Reynoso, 2 NY3d 820, 821 [2004]; People v Minley, 68 NY2d 952, 953 [1986]; People v Sancho-Hemandez, 106 AD3d 841 , 841 [2013]; People v Cameron, 74 AD3d 1223, 1224 [2010]; People v Allen, 54 AD3d 868, 868-869 [2008]). | 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. Bennett
green
2 sentences2014Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see Matter of Robert D., 69 AD3d 714, 716-717 [2010]), we conclude that the inconsistencies in the testimony presented a credibility question for the hearing court, which determination is entitled to great deference on appeal (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 , 761 [1977]; People v Bennett, 57 AD3d 912 [2008]), and we discern no basis on this record to disturb that determination. 2013Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see Matter of Robert D., 69 AD3d 714, 716-717 [2010]), we conclude that the inconsistencies in the testimony presented a credibility question for the hearing court, which determination is entitled to great deference on appeal (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 , 761 [1977]; People v Bennett, 57 AD3d 912 [2008]), and we discern no basis on this record to disturb that determination. | 3 | 2013–2014 |
People v. Dunbar
green
1 sentence2020Further, the testimony presented a credibility question for the hearing court, which determination is entitled to great deference on appeal ( see People v Prochilo , 41 NY2d 759 , 761; People v Dunbar , 104 AD3d at 216 ), and we discern no basis on this record to disturb that determination in the exercise of our factual review power. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Duggins
green
1 sentence2016Although the defendant testified on his own behalf to the contrary, the conflicting testimony adduced at the suppression hearing presented a credibility question for the hearing court (see People v Grigoroff, 131 AD3d 541, 543 [2015]), and there is no basis in the record to disturb the hearing court’s determination to credit the police testimony (see People v Duggins, 1 AD3d 450 [2003], affd 3 NY3d 522 [2004]). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Suitte
green
1 sentence2016The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Sancho-Hernandez
neutral
1 sentence2014Moreover, contrary to the defendant’s further contention, his arrest in the hallway of a single room residence hotel did not violate his rights under Payton v New York ( 445 US 573 [1980]; see People v Reynoso, 2 NY3d 820, 821 [2004]; People v Minley, 68 NY2d 952, 953 [1986]; People v Sancho-Hemandez, 106 AD3d 841 , 841 [2013]; People v Cameron, 74 AD3d 1223, 1224 [2010]; People v Allen, 54 AD3d 868, 868-869 [2008]). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Payton v. New York
green
1 sentence2014Moreover, contrary to the defendant’s further contention, his arrest in the hallway of a single room residence hotel did not violate his rights under Payton v New York ( 445 US 573 [1980]; see People v Reynoso, 2 NY3d 820, 821 [2004]; People v Minley, 68 NY2d 952, 953 [1986]; People v Sancho-Hemandez, 106 AD3d 841 , 841 [2013]; People v Cameron, 74 AD3d 1223, 1224 [2010]; People v Allen, 54 AD3d 868, 868-869 [2008]). | 1 | 2014–2014 |