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 1993–2021 1 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. Ramirezgreen2 sentences2011Defendant therefore was required to register an objection in order to preserve for our review his challenge to the procedure employed by the court in responding to the jury notes, “at a time when any error by the court could have been obviated by timely objection” (People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509, 516 ; see People v Ramirez, 15 NY3d 824, 825-826 ; cf. People v Kisoon, 8 NY3d 129, 134 ). 2011Defendant therefore was required to register an objection in order to preserve for our review his challenge to the procedure employed by the court in responding to the jury notes, “at a time when any error by the court could have been obviated by timely objection” (People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509, 516 [1995]; see People v Ramirez, 15 NY3d 824, 825-826 [2010]; cf. People v Kisoon, 8 NY3d 129, 134 [2007]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Starlinggreen2 sentences2011Defendant therefore was required to register an objection in order to preserve for our review his challenge to the procedure employed by the court in responding to the jury notes, “at a time when any error by the court could have been obviated by timely objection” (People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509, 516 ; see People v Ramirez, 15 NY3d 824, 825-826 ; cf. People v Kisoon, 8 NY3d 129, 134 ). 2011Defendant therefore was required to register an objection in order to preserve for our review his challenge to the procedure employed by the court in responding to the jury notes, “at a time when any error by the court could have been obviated by timely objection” (People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509, 516 [1995]; see People v Ramirez, 15 NY3d 824, 825-826 [2010]; cf. People v Kisoon, 8 NY3d 129, 134 [2007]). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Kisoongreen2 sentences2011Defendant therefore was required to register an objection in order to preserve for our review his challenge to the procedure employed by the court in responding to the jury notes, “at a time when any error by the court could have been obviated by timely objection” (People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509, 516 ; see People v Ramirez, 15 NY3d 824, 825-826 ; cf. People v Kisoon, 8 NY3d 129, 134 ). 2011Defendant therefore was required to register an objection in order to preserve for our review his challenge to the procedure employed by the court in responding to the jury notes, “at a time when any error by the court could have been obviated by timely objection” (People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509, 516 [1995]; see People v Ramirez, 15 NY3d 824, 825-826 [2010]; cf. People v Kisoon, 8 NY3d 129, 134 [2007]). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Bonnergreen2 sentences2011The record establishes that the court provided a nearly verbatim summary of the contents of the notes in open court, in the presence of defendant and defense counsel, before responding to the notes (see People v Bonner, 79 AD3d 1790, 1791 ; People v Salas, 47 AD3d 513 , lv denied 10 NY3d 844 ). 2011The record establishes that the court provided a nearly verbatim summary of the contents of the notes in open court, in the presence of defendant and defense counsel, before responding to the notes (see People v Bonner, 79 AD3d 1790, 1791 [2010]; People v Salas, 47 AD3d 513 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 844 [2008]). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Hotalinggreen1 sentence2021Having reviewed the sealed transcripts pertaining to that proceeding, we conclude that the court properly determined that the People were not required under Brady to disclose any further information about the informant or the informant's account of the alleged robbery, inasmuch as the informant's account was not exculpatory to defendant ( see People v Fisher , 119 AD3d 426, 429 [1st Dept 2014], affd 28 NY3d 717 [2017]; People v Hotaling , 135 AD3d 1171, 1173 [3d Dept 2016]; see generally People v Andre W. , 44 NY2d 179 , 185 [1978]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Fishergreen1 sentence2021Having reviewed the sealed transcripts pertaining to that proceeding, we conclude that the court properly determined that the People were not required under Brady to disclose any further information about the informant or the informant's account of the alleged robbery, inasmuch as the informant's account was not exculpatory to defendant ( see People v Fisher , 119 AD3d 426, 429 [1st Dept 2014], affd 28 NY3d 717 [2017]; People v Hotaling , 135 AD3d 1171, 1173 [3d Dept 2016]; see generally People v Andre W. , 44 NY2d 179 , 185 [1978]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Cartergreen1 sentence2001Moreover, the People may effectively state their readiness for trial outside the presence of defendant or defense counsel and when the case is not on the court’s calender (People v Carter, 91 NY2d 795, 798 [1998] [People’s prearraignment statement of readiness at the time the indictment was filed was effective even where defendants were only notified of arraignment date by letters to their last known address]; People v Goss, 87 NY2d 792 [1996] [prearraignment notice of readiness effective where sufficient time permitted defendant’s arraignment within statutory speedy trial period]; People v Ke | 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. Salas
green
2 sentences2011The record establishes that the court provided a nearly verbatim summary of the contents of the notes in open court, in the presence of defendant and defense counsel, before responding to the notes (see People v Bonner, 79 AD3d 1790, 1791 ; People v Salas, 47 AD3d 513 , lv denied 10 NY3d 844 ). 2011The record establishes that the court provided a nearly verbatim summary of the contents of the notes in open court, in the presence of defendant and defense counsel, before responding to the notes (see People v Bonner, 79 AD3d 1790, 1791 [2010]; People v Salas, 47 AD3d 513 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 844 [2008]). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
The People v. Kevin Fisher
green
1 sentence2021Having reviewed the sealed transcripts pertaining to that proceeding, we conclude that the court properly determined that the People were not required under Brady to disclose any further information about the informant or the informant's account of the alleged robbery, inasmuch as the informant's account was not exculpatory to defendant ( see People v Fisher , 119 AD3d 426, 429 [1st Dept 2014], affd 28 NY3d 717 [2017]; People v Hotaling , 135 AD3d 1171, 1173 [3d Dept 2016]; see generally People v Andre W. , 44 NY2d 179 , 185 [1978]). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Goss
green
1 sentence2001Moreover, the People may effectively state their readiness for trial outside the presence of defendant or defense counsel and when the case is not on the court’s calender (People v Carter, 91 NY2d 795, 798 [1998] [People’s prearraignment statement of readiness at the time the indictment was filed was effective even where defendants were only notified of arraignment date by letters to their last known address]; People v Goss, 87 NY2d 792 [1996] [prearraignment notice of readiness effective where sufficient time permitted defendant’s arraignment within statutory speedy trial period]; People v Ke | 1 | 2001–2001 |
People v. Corley
green
1 sentence2001Moreover, the People may effectively state their readiness for trial outside the presence of defendant or defense counsel and when the case is not on the court’s calender (People v Carter, 91 NY2d 795, 798 [1998] [People’s prearraignment statement of readiness at the time the indictment was filed was effective even where defendants were only notified of arraignment date by letters to their last known address]; People v Goss, 87 NY2d 792 [1996] [prearraignment notice of readiness effective where sufficient time permitted defendant’s arraignment within statutory speedy trial period]; People v Ke | 1 | 2001–2001 |
People v. Fuller
neutral
1 sentence2001Moreover, the People may effectively state their readiness for trial outside the presence of defendant or defense counsel and when the case is not on the court’s calender (People v Carter, 91 NY2d 795, 798 [1998] [People’s prearraignment statement of readiness at the time the indictment was filed was effective even where defendants were only notified of arraignment date by letters to their last known address]; People v Goss, 87 NY2d 792 [1996] [prearraignment notice of readiness effective where sufficient time permitted defendant’s arraignment within statutory speedy trial period]; People v Ke | 1 | 2001–2001 |
People v. Lindsey
green
1 sentence2001Moreover, the People may effectively state their readiness for trial outside the presence of defendant or defense counsel and when the case is not on the court’s calender (People v Carter, 91 NY2d 795, 798 [1998] [People’s prearraignment statement of readiness at the time the indictment was filed was effective even where defendants were only notified of arraignment date by letters to their last known address]; People v Goss, 87 NY2d 792 [1996] [prearraignment notice of readiness effective where sufficient time permitted defendant’s arraignment within statutory speedy trial period]; People v Ke | 1 | 2001–2001 |
People v. DePillo
green
1 sentence2001By failing to raise any objection to the procedure utilized by the court, defendant has failed to preserve his present contention for our review (see, People v DePillo, 262 AD2d 996, 996-997 , lv denied 93 NY2d 1044 ). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
People v. Kendzia
green
1 sentence2001Moreover, the People may effectively state their readiness for trial outside the presence of defendant or defense counsel and when the case is not on the court’s calender (People v Carter, 91 NY2d 795, 798 [1998] [People’s prearraignment statement of readiness at the time the indictment was filed was effective even where defendants were only notified of arraignment date by letters to their last known address]; People v Goss, 87 NY2d 792 [1996] [prearraignment notice of readiness effective where sufficient time permitted defendant’s arraignment within statutory speedy trial period]; People v Ke | 1 | 2001–2001 |
People v. Green
green
1 sentence1993Because defendant was not subject to an undisposed felony complaint in a local criminal court, the District Attorney was not required to provide defendant with notice that the matter was going to be presented to a Grand Jury (see, CPL 190.50 [5] [a]; People v Simmons, 178 AD2d 972 , lv denied 79 NY2d 1007 ; People v Conde, 131 AD2d 586 ; People v Green, 110 AD2d 1035, 1036 ). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
People v. Corredor
neutral
1 sentence1993Because defendant was not subject to an undisposed felony complaint in a local criminal court, the District Attorney was not required to provide defendant with notice that the matter was going to be presented to a Grand Jury (see, CPL 190.50 [5] [a]; People v Simmons, 178 AD2d 972 , lv denied 79 NY2d 1007 ; People v Conde, 131 AD2d 586 ; People v Green, 110 AD2d 1035, 1036 ). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
People v. Cooper
neutral
1 sentence1993Because defendant was not subject to an undisposed felony complaint in a local criminal court, the District Attorney was not required to provide defendant with notice that the matter was going to be presented to a Grand Jury (see, CPL 190.50 [5] [a]; People v Simmons, 178 AD2d 972 , lv denied 79 NY2d 1007 ; People v Conde, 131 AD2d 586 ; People v Green, 110 AD2d 1035, 1036 ). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.
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.