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 2011–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
The People v. Terrance L. Mackgreen2 sentences2023The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court's handling of a certain jury note resulted in the commission of a mode of proceeding error requiring reversal ( see People v O'Rama , 78 NY2d 270 ) is without merit, as the jury was not requesting further information or instruction within the meaning of CPL 310.30 ( see People v Edwards , 208 AD3d 510, 515 , citing People v Morrison , 148 AD3d 1707, 1708 , affd 32 NY3d 951 ), and, in any event, defense counsel was "not prevented from objecting or from participating meaningfully" ( People v Mack , 27 NY3d 534, 542 ). 2020It is also well established, however, "that not every departure from the O'Rama procedure or violation of CPL 310.30 constitutes a mode of proceeding error" ( People v Mack , 27 NY3d at 539 ; see People v Nealon , 26 NY3d 152, 158 [2015]), and that this designation is reserved for a limited class of errors that "go to the essential validity of the process and [are] so fundamental that the entire trial is irreparably tainted" ( People v Mack , 27 NY3d at 541 [internal quotation marks, brackets and citation omitted]). | 1 | 2 |
The People v.Kenneth Nealongreen1 sentence2020It is also well established, however, "that not every departure from the O'Rama procedure or violation of CPL 310.30 constitutes a mode of proceeding error" ( People v Mack , 27 NY3d at 539 ; see People v Nealon , 26 NY3d 152, 158 [2015]), and that this designation is reserved for a limited class of errors that "go to the essential validity of the process and [are] so fundamental that the entire trial is irreparably tainted" ( People v Mack , 27 NY3d at 541 [internal quotation marks, brackets and citation omitted]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Pattersongreen1 sentence2016These arguments find support in our case law and applicable statutes. - 1 - - 2 - No. 10 A mode of proceedings error is one that "affects 'the organization of the court or the mode of proceedings pr[e]scribed by law'" (People v Walston, 23 NY3d 986 , 991 [2014], quoting People v Patterson, 39 NY2d 288, 295 [1976]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lockleygreen1 sentence2011Since the notes were not substantive, any failure by the trial court to comply with CPL 310.30 did not constitute a mode of proceeding error (see People v O’Rama, 78 NY2d 270 [1991]; People v Lockley, 84 AD3d 836, 839 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 807 [2011]). | 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. O'Rama
green
2 sentences2026In light of the resettled transcript, there is no merit to the defendant's contention that the Supreme Court failed to comply with the procedure set forth in People v O'Rama ( 78 NY2d 270 ) with respect to jury note 1 and, thus, no basis for reversing the defendant's conviction due to a purported mode of proceeding error ( see People v Potomont , 225 AD3d 789 , 790-791; People v Jordan , 200 AD3d 715, 716 ). 2023The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court's handling of a certain jury note resulted in the commission of a mode of proceeding error requiring reversal ( see People v O'Rama , 78 NY2d 270 ) is without merit, as the jury was not requesting further information or instruction within the meaning of CPL 310.30 ( see People v Edwards , 208 AD3d 510, 515 , citing People v Morrison , 148 AD3d 1707, 1708 , affd 32 NY3d 951 ), and, in any event, defense counsel was "not prevented from objecting or from participating meaningfully" ( People v Mack , 27 NY3d 534, 542 ). | 4 | 2011–2026 |
People v. Suitte
green
1 sentence2026The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v Suitte , 90 AD2d 80 ). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Jordan
neutral
1 sentence2026In light of the resettled transcript, there is no merit to the defendant's contention that the Supreme Court failed to comply with the procedure set forth in People v O'Rama ( 78 NY2d 270 ) with respect to jury note 1 and, thus, no basis for reversing the defendant's conviction due to a purported mode of proceeding error ( see People v Potomont , 225 AD3d 789 , 790-791; People v Jordan , 200 AD3d 715, 716 ). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Potomont
green
1 sentence2026In light of the resettled transcript, there is no merit to the defendant's contention that the Supreme Court failed to comply with the procedure set forth in People v O'Rama ( 78 NY2d 270 ) with respect to jury note 1 and, thus, no basis for reversing the defendant's conviction due to a purported mode of proceeding error ( see People v Potomont , 225 AD3d 789 , 790-791; People v Jordan , 200 AD3d 715, 716 ). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Edwards
neutral
1 sentence2023The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court's handling of a certain jury note resulted in the commission of a mode of proceeding error requiring reversal ( see People v O'Rama , 78 NY2d 270 ) is without merit, as the jury was not requesting further information or instruction within the meaning of CPL 310.30 ( see People v Edwards , 208 AD3d 510, 515 , citing People v Morrison , 148 AD3d 1707, 1708 , affd 32 NY3d 951 ), and, in any event, defense counsel was "not prevented from objecting or from participating meaningfully" ( People v Mack , 27 NY3d 534, 542 ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Morrison
green
1 sentence2023The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court's handling of a certain jury note resulted in the commission of a mode of proceeding error requiring reversal ( see People v O'Rama , 78 NY2d 270 ) is without merit, as the jury was not requesting further information or instruction within the meaning of CPL 310.30 ( see People v Edwards , 208 AD3d 510, 515 , citing People v Morrison , 148 AD3d 1707, 1708 , affd 32 NY3d 951 ), and, in any event, defense counsel was "not prevented from objecting or from participating meaningfully" ( People v Mack , 27 NY3d 534, 542 ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Morrison
green
1 sentence2023The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court's handling of a certain jury note resulted in the commission of a mode of proceeding error requiring reversal ( see People v O'Rama , 78 NY2d 270 ) is without merit, as the jury was not requesting further information or instruction within the meaning of CPL 310.30 ( see People v Edwards , 208 AD3d 510, 515 , citing People v Morrison , 148 AD3d 1707, 1708 , affd 32 NY3d 951 ), and, in any event, defense counsel was "not prevented from objecting or from participating meaningfully" ( People v Mack , 27 NY3d 534, 542 ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Walston
green
1 sentence2016These arguments find support in our case law and applicable statutes. - 1 - - 2 - No. 10 A mode of proceedings error is one that "affects 'the organization of the court or the mode of proceedings pr[e]scribed by law'" (People v Walston, 23 NY3d 986 , 991 [2014], quoting People v Patterson, 39 NY2d 288, 295 [1976]). | 1 | 2016–2016 |