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.
7 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1934–2024 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. Owensgreen1 sentence2019"Testimony by one witness (e.g., a police officer) to a previous identification of the defendant by another witness (e.g., a victim) is inadmissible" ( People v Smith , 22 NY3d 462, 466 [2013]; see also People v Owens , 127 AD3d 561, 563 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 1004 [2016] [characterizing testimony of witness that he received a phone call from victim naming defendant as the attacker as hearsay because it was an "out-of-court statement to [the witness] identifying defendant as his assailant — either by name or by an identifying description that allowed [the witness] to name [the defe | 1 | 1 |
People v. Smithgreen1 sentence2019"Testimony by one witness (e.g., a police officer) to a previous identification of the defendant by another witness (e.g., a victim) is inadmissible" ( People v Smith , 22 NY3d 462, 466 [2013]; see also People v Owens , 127 AD3d 561, 563 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 1004 [2016] [characterizing testimony of witness that he received a phone call from victim naming defendant as the attacker as hearsay because it was an "out-of-court statement to [the witness] identifying defendant as his assailant — either by name or by an identifying description that allowed [the witness] to name [the defe | 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 |
|---|---|---|
The People v. Robert Hinshaw
green
1 sentence2024This too was error. [*7] As we recently stated in People v Hinshaw , a vehicular stop is a seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes and requires probable cause of a traffic violation or reasonable suspicion that the driver or occupants have committed, are committing or about to commit a crime, or that the stop is conducted pursuant to uniform traffic procedures ( see 35 NY3d 427 , 430 [2020]). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Rivera v. City of New York
neutral
2 sentences2014To the extent that the trial court sustained the redaction because defendant did not call an expert medical witness to testify as to the manner of death, this too was error since the redacted conclusion was not being offered for its truth, i.e., that the infant’s manner of death was in fact “homicide (parental neglect),” 1 but rather, for the effect it had on the mind of the detective who made the arrest (Rivera v City of New York, 200 AD2d 379 [1st Dept 1994]). 2014To the extent that the trial court sustained the redaction because defendant did not call an expert medical witness to testify as to the manner of death, this too was error since the redacted conclusion was not being offered for its truth, i.e., that the infant's manner of death was in fact "homicide (parental neglect)," [FN1] but rather, for the effect it had on the mind of the detective who made the arrest ( Rivera v City of New York, 200 AD2d 379 [1st Dept 1994]). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Gregg
neutral
1 sentence1985However, while the witness’ prior inconsistent statement should have been permitted into evidence (People v Wise, 46 NY2d 321 , supra; People v Sepulveda, 105 AD2d 854 ; People v Gregg, 90 AD2d 812 ), given the overwhelming proof of defendant’s guilt, this error is also deemed harmless (People v Dackowski, 50 NY2d 962 ; People v Crimmins, supra). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
People v. Sepulveda
green
1 sentence1985However, while the witness’ prior inconsistent statement should have been permitted into evidence (People v Wise, 46 NY2d 321 , supra; People v Sepulveda, 105 AD2d 854 ; People v Gregg, 90 AD2d 812 ), given the overwhelming proof of defendant’s guilt, this error is also deemed harmless (People v Dackowski, 50 NY2d 962 ; People v Crimmins, supra). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
People v. Crimmins
green
1 sentence1985However, while the witness’ prior inconsistent statement should have been permitted into evidence (People v Wise, 46 NY2d 321 , supra; People v Sepulveda, 105 AD2d 854 ; People v Gregg, 90 AD2d 812 ), given the overwhelming proof of defendant’s guilt, this error is also deemed harmless (People v Dackowski, 50 NY2d 962 ; People v Crimmins, supra). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
People v. Dackowski
green
1 sentence1985However, while the witness’ prior inconsistent statement should have been permitted into evidence (People v Wise, 46 NY2d 321 , supra; People v Sepulveda, 105 AD2d 854 ; People v Gregg, 90 AD2d 812 ), given the overwhelming proof of defendant’s guilt, this error is also deemed harmless (People v Dackowski, 50 NY2d 962 ; People v Crimmins, supra). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
People v. Wise
green
1 sentence1985However, while the witness’ prior inconsistent statement should have been permitted into evidence (People v Wise, 46 NY2d 321 , supra; People v Sepulveda, 105 AD2d 854 ; People v Gregg, 90 AD2d 812 ), given the overwhelming proof of defendant’s guilt, this error is also deemed harmless (People v Dackowski, 50 NY2d 962 ; People v Crimmins, supra). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Keviczky v. Lorber
green
1 sentence1958It is to be stressed that the Keviczky case ( 290 N. Y. 297 , supra) was determined after trial. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
People v. Boehm
green
1 sentence1956(People v. Boehm, 285 App. Div. 245, 248 , affd. 309 N. Y. 362 ; Matter of Bojinoff v. People, supra.) There is another element which is worthy of comment. | 1 | 1956–1956 |
People v. Boehm
green
1 sentence1956(People v. Boehm, 285 App. Div. 245, 248 , affd. 309 N. Y. 362 ; Matter of Bojinoff v. People, supra.) There is another element which is worthy of comment. | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Mulligan v. . Sinski
neutral
1 sentence1934(Mulligan v. Sinski, 156 App. Div. 35 ; affd., 214 N. Y. 678 .) However, we affirm the decree for the reason that it does not appear to us that these errors were necessarily prejudicial to the exceptant. | 1 | 1934–1934 |
Mulligan v. Sinski
green
1 sentence1934(Mulligan v. Sinski, 156 App. Div. 35 ; affd., 214 N. Y. 678 .) However, we affirm the decree for the reason that it does not appear to us that these errors were necessarily prejudicial to the exceptant. | 1 | 1934–1934 |
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.