46 New York opinions name it 6 courts 1981–2026 8 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. Cabangreen2 sentences2022Further, counsel's representation of defendant was meaningful, in satisfaction of the state constitutional standard of effective assistance of counsel ( see People v Borrell , 12 NY3d 365, 368 [2009] ["To be meaningful, [] representation need not be perfect"]; People v Caban , 5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005]; People v Benevento , 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]). 2013The defendant received the effective assistance of counsel under both the state constitutional standard (see People v Williams, 8 NY3d 854, 855-856 [2007]; People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]; People v West, 105 AD3d 781 [2013]) and the federal constitutional standard (see Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]). | 6 | 6 |
People v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2013The defendant received the effective assistance of counsel under both the state constitutional standard (see People v Williams, 8 NY3d 854, 855-856 [2007]; People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]; People v West, 105 AD3d 781 [2013]) and the federal constitutional standard (see Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]). 2013The defendant received the effective assistance of counsel under both the state constitutional standard (see People v Williams, 8 NY3d 854, 855-856 [2007]; People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]; People v West, 105 AD3d 781 [2013]) and the federal constitutional standard (see Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]). | 5 | 5 |
People v. Beneventogreen2 sentences2022Further, counsel's representation of defendant was meaningful, in satisfaction of the state constitutional standard of effective assistance of counsel ( see People v Borrell , 12 NY3d 365, 368 [2009] ["To be meaningful, [] representation need not be perfect"]; People v Caban , 5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005]; People v Benevento , 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]). 2013The defendant received the effective assistance of counsel under both the state constitutional standard (see People v Williams, 8 NY3d 854, 855-856 [2007]; People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]; People v West, 105 AD3d 781 [2013]) and the federal constitutional standard (see Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]). | 4 | 5 |
People v. Baldigreen2 sentences2013The defendant received the effective assistance of counsel under both the state constitutional standard (see People v Williams, 8 NY3d 854, 855-856 [2007]; People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]; People v West, 105 AD3d 781 [2013]) and the federal constitutional standard (see Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]). 2013The defendant received the effective assistance of counsel under both the state constitutional standard (see People v Williams, 8 NY3d 854, 855-856 [2007]; People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]; People v West, 105 AD3d 781 [2013]) and the federal constitutional standard (see Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]). | 4 | 5 |
People v. Harrisgreen2 sentences2006Since defendant was not arrested in his home and no Payton violation occurred, the state constitutional rule pronounced in People v Harris ( 77 NY2d 434, 439-440 [1991]) * is inapplicable, and we decline defendant’s request to extend existing protections and precedents here. 1999(Scott v United States, 436 US, at 139, n 13 .) Therefore, the preconditions for creation of a separate State constitutional rule in this area do not appear to be present, and the presumption of general consistency (People v Harris, 77 NY2d, at 437 ) prevails. | 2 | 3 |
Waxter v. Stategreen2 sentences2024"Assuming arguendo that a parallel state constitutional claim could be recognized, a state constitutional claim is precluded due to the availability of alternative remedies, including an action pursuant to 42 USC 1983 in federal court and common law tort claims" ( McFarland v State of New York , UID No. 2024-066-544 [Ct Cl, Haak, J., July 15, 2024][citations omitted]; see also Williams v State of New York , 137 AD3d 1579 , 1580 [4th Dept 2016], appeal dismissed 28 NY3d 958 [2016] ; Shelton, 61 AD3d at 1150 ; Waxter v State of New York , 33 AD3d 1180, 1181-1182 [3d Dept 2006]["a private right o 2024"Assuming arguendo that a parallel state constitutional claim could be recognized, a state constitutional claim is precluded due to the availability of alternative remedies, including an action pursuant to 42 USC 1983 in federal court and common law tort claims" ( McFarland v State of New York , UID No. 2024-066-544 [Ct Cl, Haak, J., July 15, 2024][citations omitted]; see also Williams v State of New York , 137 AD3d 1579 , 1580 [4th Dept 2016], appeal dismissed 28 NY3d 958 [2016] ; Shelton, 61 AD3d at 1150 ; Waxter v State of New York , 33 AD3d 1180, 1181-1182 [3d Dept 2006]["a private right o | 2 | 2 |
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences2024"Assuming arguendo that a parallel state constitutional claim could be recognized, a state constitutional claim is precluded due to the availability of alternative remedies, including an action pursuant to 42 USC 1983 in federal court and common law tort claims" ( McFarland v State of New York , UID No. 2024-066-544 [Ct Cl, Haak, J., July 15, 2024][citations omitted]; see also Williams v State of New York , 137 AD3d 1579 , 1580 [4th Dept 2016], appeal dismissed 28 NY3d 958 [2016] ; Shelton, 61 AD3d at 1150 ; Waxter v State of New York , 33 AD3d 1180, 1181-1182 [3d Dept 2006]["a private right o 2024"Assuming arguendo that a parallel state constitutional claim could be recognized, a state constitutional claim is precluded due to the availability of alternative remedies, including an action pursuant to 42 USC 1983 in federal court and common law tort claims" ( McFarland v State of New York , UID No. 2024-066-544 [Ct Cl, Haak, J., July 15, 2024][citations omitted]; see also Williams v State of New York , 137 AD3d 1579 , 1580 [4th Dept 2016], appeal dismissed 28 NY3d 958 [2016] ; Shelton, 61 AD3d at 1150 ; Waxter v State of New York , 33 AD3d 1180, 1181-1182 [3d Dept 2006]["a private right o | 2 | 2 |
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences2024"Assuming arguendo that a parallel state constitutional claim could be recognized, a state constitutional claim is precluded due to the availability of alternative remedies, including an action pursuant to 42 USC 1983 in federal court and common law tort claims" ( McFarland v State of New York , UID No. 2024-066-544 [Ct Cl, Haak, J., July 15, 2024][citations omitted]; see also Williams v State of New York , 137 AD3d 1579 , 1580 [4th Dept 2016], appeal dismissed 28 NY3d 958 [2016] ; Shelton, 61 AD3d at 1150 ; Waxter v State of New York , 33 AD3d 1180, 1181-1182 [3d Dept 2006]["a private right o 2024"Assuming arguendo that a parallel state constitutional claim could be recognized, a state constitutional claim is precluded due to the availability of alternative remedies, including an action pursuant to 42 USC 1983 in federal court and common law tort claims" ( McFarland v State of New York , UID No. 2024-066-544 [Ct Cl, Haak, J., July 15, 2024][citations omitted]; see also Williams v State of New York , 137 AD3d 1579 , 1580 [4th Dept 2016], appeal dismissed 28 NY3d 958 [2016] ; Shelton, 61 AD3d at 1150 ; Waxter v State of New York , 33 AD3d 1180, 1181-1182 [3d Dept 2006]["a private right o | 2 | 2 |
Davis v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2013The defendant’s contention that his right to confrontation was violated (see Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36 [2004]) is not preserved for appellate review (see People v Fleming, 70 NY2d 947 [1988]; People v Marino, 21 AD3d 430, 431 [2005]; see also People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 400 [1981]) and, in any event, is without merit (see Davis v Washington, 547 US 813, 821 [2006]; Crawford v Washington, 541 US at 53-54 ). 2013The defendant’s contention that his right to confrontation was violated (see Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36 [2004]) is not preserved for appellate review (see People v Fleming, 70 NY2d 947 [1988]; People v Marino, 21 AD3d 430, 431 [2005]; see also People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 400 [1981]) and, in any event, is without merit (see Davis v Washington, 547 US 813, 821 [2006]; Crawford v Washington, 541 US at 53-54 ). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Maldonadogreen2 sentences2013The defendant’s contention that his right to confrontation was violated (see Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36 [2004]) is not preserved for appellate review (see People v Fleming, 70 NY2d 947 [1988]; People v Marino, 21 AD3d 430, 431 [2005]; see also People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 400 [1981]) and, in any event, is without merit (see Davis v Washington, 547 US 813, 821 [2006]; Crawford v Washington, 541 US at 53-54 ). 2013The defendant’s contention that his right to confrontation was violated (see Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36 [2004]) is not preserved for appellate review (see People v Fleming, 70 NY2d 947 [1988]; People v Marino, 21 AD3d 430, 431 [2005]; see also People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 400 [1981]) and, in any event, is without merit (see Davis v Washington, 547 US 813, 821 [2006]; Crawford v Washington, 541 US at 53-54 ). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Gallowaygreen2 sentences2013The defendant’s contention that his right to confrontation was violated (see Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36 [2004]) is not preserved for appellate review (see People v Fleming, 70 NY2d 947 [1988]; People v Marino, 21 AD3d 430, 431 [2005]; see also People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 400 [1981]) and, in any event, is without merit (see Davis v Washington, 547 US 813, 821 [2006]; Crawford v Washington, 541 US at 53-54 ). 2013The defendant’s contention that his right to confrontation was violated (see Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36 [2004]) is not preserved for appellate review (see People v Fleming, 70 NY2d 947 [1988]; People v Marino, 21 AD3d 430, 431 [2005]; see also People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 400 [1981]) and, in any event, is without merit (see Davis v Washington, 547 US 813, 821 [2006]; Crawford v Washington, 541 US at 53-54 ). | 2 | 2 |
Patchogue-Medford Congress of Teachers v. Board of Educationgreen2 sentences2004As the court later observed {** 3 Misc 3d at 970 }( Matter of Patchogue-Medford Congress of Teachers v Board of Educ. of Patchogue-Medford Union Free School Dist. 70 NY2d 57 [1987]), the isolated reference to the State Constitution in Piccarillo served only to underscore that "this court has traditionally rested its decisions [in search and seizure cases] on both State and Federal grounds when it appears that they both support the result reached ." ( 70 NY2d at 66 [emphasis supplied], citing, inter alia, Piccarillo .) Notably, the Court in Piccarillo did not engage in the substantial exegesis 2004As the court later observed {** 3 Misc 3d at 970 }( Matter of Patchogue-Medford Congress of Teachers v Board of Educ. of Patchogue-Medford Union Free School Dist. 70 NY2d 57 [1987]), the isolated reference to the State Constitution in Piccarillo served only to underscore that "this court has traditionally rested its decisions [in search and seizure cases] on both State and Federal grounds when it appears that they both support the result reached ." ( 70 NY2d at 66 [emphasis supplied], citing, inter alia, Piccarillo .) Notably, the Court in Piccarillo did not engage in the substantial exegesis | 2 | 2 |
People v. Ketagreen2 sentences2000(Matter of Hynes v Tomei, 237 AD2d 52, 61 [2d Dept 1997], revd on other grounds 92 NY2d 613 [1998]; People v Keta, 165 AD2d 172, 177-178 [2d Dept 1991], revd on other grounds 79 NY2d 474 [1992]; People v Lucas, 183 Misc 2d 639, 644 [Sup Ct, Monroe County 1999]; cf., People v Robinson, 271 AD2d 17 [1st Dept 2000] [evidently leaving open whether an Appellate Division may first articulate a separate State constitutional rule at variance with Federal constitutional standards].) 1999(People v Keta, 165 AD2d 172, 177-178 [2d Dept 1991], revd on other grounds 79 NY2d 474 [1992].) Moreover, this case does not involve a search and seizure context, i.e., investigative or traffic stops, or special circumstances, appropriate for the creation of a separate State constitutional rule under New York Constitution, article I, § 12. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Riveragreen2 sentences2025Under the state constitutional standard, which requires that counsel provide "meaningful representation," a defendant must "demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for counsel's failure" ( People v Rivera , 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]). 2025Under the state constitutional standard, which requires that counsel provide "meaningful representation," a defendant must "demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for counsel's failure" ( People v Rivera , 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]). | 1 | 2 |
Town of Islip v. Cavigliagreen2 sentences1998The Federal constitutional analysis requires examination of the ordinance’s “predominant purpose” (see, Renton v Playtime Theatres, supra), while the State constitutional inquiry focuses on whether there has been “a purposeful attempt to regulate speech” (Matter of Town of Islip v Caviglia, supra, at 557). 1995The Court then went further and reviewed the challenged ordinance under a separate State constitutional analysis because it recognized that in the area of freedom of expression, the Supreme Court "has displayed great reluctance to expand Federal constitutional protections, holding instead that the subject is governed essentially by community standards” (cf., Miller v California, 413 US 15 [1973]), while the courts of this State have a long history of fostering free expression (Town of Islip v Caviglia, supra, 73 NY2d, at 556 ). . | 1 | 2 |
People v. Mahoneygreen2 sentences2026Footnote 5: See People v McBride , 14 NY3d 440, 445 (2010) ("It is axiomatic that warrantless entries into a home to make an arrest are presumptively unreasonable" [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]); People v Minley , 68 NY2d 952, 953 (1986) (" Payton . . . prohibits the police from crossing the threshold of a suspect's home to effect a warrantless arrest"); People v Levan , 62 NY2d 139, 144 (1984) ("Under Payton . . . no private dwelling may be entered by the police to arrest its occupant if an arrest warrant has not been obtained"); People v Mahoney , 58 NY2d 475, 479 (1983) ( 2026Footnote 5: See People v McBride , 14 NY3d 440, 445 (2010) ("It is axiomatic that warrantless entries into a home to make an arrest are presumptively unreasonable" [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]); People v Minley , 68 NY2d 952, 953 (1986) (" Payton . . . prohibits the police from crossing the threshold of a suspect's home to effect a warrantless arrest"); People v Levan , 62 NY2d 139, 144 (1984) ("Under Payton . . . no private dwelling may be entered by the police to arrest its occupant if an arrest warrant has not been obtained"); People v Mahoney , 58 NY2d 475, 479 (1983) ( | 1 | 1 |
People v. Levangreen2 sentences2026Footnote 5: See People v McBride , 14 NY3d 440, 445 (2010) ("It is axiomatic that warrantless entries into a home to make an arrest are presumptively unreasonable" [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]); People v Minley , 68 NY2d 952, 953 (1986) (" Payton . . . prohibits the police from crossing the threshold of a suspect's home to effect a warrantless arrest"); People v Levan , 62 NY2d 139, 144 (1984) ("Under Payton . . . no private dwelling may be entered by the police to arrest its occupant if an arrest warrant has not been obtained"); People v Mahoney , 58 NY2d 475, 479 (1983) ( 2026Footnote 5: See People v McBride , 14 NY3d 440, 445 (2010) ("It is axiomatic that warrantless entries into a home to make an arrest are presumptively unreasonable" [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]); People v Minley , 68 NY2d 952, 953 (1986) (" Payton . . . prohibits the police from crossing the threshold of a suspect's home to effect a warrantless arrest"); People v Levan , 62 NY2d 139, 144 (1984) ("Under Payton . . . no private dwelling may be entered by the police to arrest its occupant if an arrest warrant has not been obtained"); People v Mahoney , 58 NY2d 475, 479 (1983) ( | 1 | 1 |
People v. McBridegreen2 sentences2026Footnote 5: See People v McBride , 14 NY3d 440, 445 (2010) ("It is axiomatic that warrantless entries into a home to make an arrest are presumptively unreasonable" [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]); People v Minley , 68 NY2d 952, 953 (1986) (" Payton . . . prohibits the police from crossing the threshold of a suspect's home to effect a warrantless arrest"); People v Levan , 62 NY2d 139, 144 (1984) ("Under Payton . . . no private dwelling may be entered by the police to arrest its occupant if an arrest warrant has not been obtained"); People v Mahoney , 58 NY2d 475, 479 (1983) ( 2026Footnote 5: See People v McBride , 14 NY3d 440, 445 (2010) ("It is axiomatic that warrantless entries into a home to make an arrest are presumptively unreasonable" [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]); People v Minley , 68 NY2d 952, 953 (1986) (" Payton . . . prohibits the police from crossing the threshold of a suspect's home to effect a warrantless arrest"); People v Levan , 62 NY2d 139, 144 (1984) ("Under Payton . . . no private dwelling may be entered by the police to arrest its occupant if an arrest warrant has not been obtained"); People v Mahoney , 58 NY2d 475, 479 (1983) ( | 1 | 1 |
People v. Minleygreen2 sentences2026Footnote 5: See People v McBride , 14 NY3d 440, 445 (2010) ("It is axiomatic that warrantless entries into a home to make an arrest are presumptively unreasonable" [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]); People v Minley , 68 NY2d 952, 953 (1986) (" Payton . . . prohibits the police from crossing the threshold of a suspect's home to effect a warrantless arrest"); People v Levan , 62 NY2d 139, 144 (1984) ("Under Payton . . . no private dwelling may be entered by the police to arrest its occupant if an arrest warrant has not been obtained"); People v Mahoney , 58 NY2d 475, 479 (1983) ( 2026Footnote 5: See People v McBride , 14 NY3d 440, 445 (2010) ("It is axiomatic that warrantless entries into a home to make an arrest are presumptively unreasonable" [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]); People v Minley , 68 NY2d 952, 953 (1986) (" Payton . . . prohibits the police from crossing the threshold of a suspect's home to effect a warrantless arrest"); People v Levan , 62 NY2d 139, 144 (1984) ("Under Payton . . . no private dwelling may be entered by the police to arrest its occupant if an arrest warrant has not been obtained"); People v Mahoney , 58 NY2d 475, 479 (1983) ( | 1 | 1 |
| Martinez v. City of Schenectadygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lyles v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Matter of Pratt v. New York State Off. of Mental Healthgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Borrellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Svendsen v. Smith's Moving & Trucking Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| SHAD Alliance v. Smith Haven Mallgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sharrock v. Dell Buick-Cadillac, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Conyersgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Savagegreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Ortizgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Longtingreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Harrisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Abargreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Taylorgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Courtroom Television Network LLC v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Shanahan v. . Monarch Engineering Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Claim of the Estate of Smith v. Atlas Assembly/Crawford Furniture Manufacturing Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Robinsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Johnsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Dabneygreen | 1 | 1 |
| McNeil v. Wisconsingreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2018In so holding, the Second Circuit observed: (1) "Claudio's pre-trial appeal to the [New York] Court of Appeals was unquestionably a critical stage"; (2) "The New York Court of Appeals has consistently interpreted the right to counsel under the New York Constitution more broadly than the Supreme Court has interpreted the federal right to counsel"; "Thus, we find that there was a reasonable probability that an Article 1, § 6 claim would have succeeded before the Court of Appeals"; and (3) "[Claudio's New York appellate counsel's] failure to raise the state constitutional claim fell 'outside the 2013The defendant received the effective assistance of counsel under both the state constitutional standard (see People v Williams, 8 NY3d 854, 855-856 [2007]; People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]; People v West, 105 AD3d 781 [2013]) and the federal constitutional standard (see Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]). | 7 | 2009–2018 |
People v. Scott
green
2 sentences2000(Matter of Hynes v Tomei, 237 AD2d 52, 61 [2d Dept 1997], revd on other grounds 92 NY2d 613 [1998]; People v Keta, 165 AD2d 172, 177-178 [2d Dept 1991], revd on other grounds 79 NY2d 474 [1992]; People v Lucas, 183 Misc 2d 639, 644 [Sup Ct, Monroe County 1999]; cf., People v Robinson, 271 AD2d 17 [1st Dept 2000] [evidently leaving open whether an Appellate Division may first articulate a separate State constitutional rule at variance with Federal constitutional standards].) 1999(People v Keta, 165 AD2d 172, 177-178 [2d Dept 1991], revd on other grounds 79 NY2d 474 [1992].) Moreover, this case does not involve a search and seizure context, i.e., investigative or traffic stops, or special circumstances, appropriate for the creation of a separate State constitutional rule under New York Constitution, article I, § 12. | 3 | 1999–2004 |
Shelton v. New York State Liquor Authority
green
2 sentences2024"Assuming arguendo that a parallel state constitutional claim could be recognized, a state constitutional claim is precluded due to the availability of alternative remedies, including an action pursuant to 42 USC 1983 in federal court and common law tort claims" ( McFarland v State of New York , UID No. 2024-066-544 [Ct Cl, Haak, J., July 15, 2024][citations omitted]; see also Williams v State of New York , 137 AD3d 1579 , 1580 [4th Dept 2016], appeal dismissed 28 NY3d 958 [2016] ; Shelton, 61 AD3d at 1150 ; Waxter v State of New York , 33 AD3d 1180, 1181-1182 [3d Dept 2006]["a private right o 2024"Assuming arguendo that a parallel state constitutional claim could be recognized, a state constitutional claim is precluded due to the availability of alternative remedies, including an action pursuant to 42 USC 1983 in federal court and common law tort claims" ( McFarland v State of New York , UID No. 2024-066-544 [Ct Cl, Haak, J., July 15, 2024][citations omitted]; see also Williams v State of New York , 137 AD3d 1579 , 1580 [4th Dept 2016], appeal dismissed 28 NY3d 958 [2016] ; Shelton, 61 AD3d at 1150 ; Waxter v State of New York , 33 AD3d 1180, 1181-1182 [3d Dept 2006]["a private right o | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Crawford v. Washington
green
2 sentences2013The defendant’s contention that his right to confrontation was violated (see Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36 [2004]) is not preserved for appellate review (see People v Fleming, 70 NY2d 947 [1988]; People v Marino, 21 AD3d 430, 431 [2005]; see also People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 400 [1981]) and, in any event, is without merit (see Davis v Washington, 547 US 813, 821 [2006]; Crawford v Washington, 541 US at 53-54 ). 2013The defendant’s contention that his right to confrontation was violated (see Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36 [2004]) is not preserved for appellate review (see People v Fleming, 70 NY2d 947 [1988]; People v Marino, 21 AD3d 430, 431 [2005]; see also People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 400 [1981]) and, in any event, is without merit (see Davis v Washington, 547 US 813, 821 [2006]; Crawford v Washington, 541 US at 53-54 ). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Fleming
green
2 sentences2013The defendant’s contention that his right to confrontation was violated (see Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36 [2004]) is not preserved for appellate review (see People v Fleming, 70 NY2d 947 [1988]; People v Marino, 21 AD3d 430, 431 [2005]; see also People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 400 [1981]) and, in any event, is without merit (see Davis v Washington, 547 US 813, 821 [2006]; Crawford v Washington, 541 US at 53-54 ). 2013The defendant’s contention that his right to confrontation was violated (see Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36 [2004]) is not preserved for appellate review (see People v Fleming, 70 NY2d 947 [1988]; People v Marino, 21 AD3d 430, 431 [2005]; see also People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 400 [1981]) and, in any event, is without merit (see Davis v Washington, 547 US 813, 821 [2006]; Crawford v Washington, 541 US at 53-54 ). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
People v. West
green
2 sentences2013The defendant received the effective assistance of counsel under both the state constitutional standard (see People v Williams, 8 NY3d 854, 855-856 [2007]; People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]; People v West, 105 AD3d 781 [2013]) and the federal constitutional standard (see Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]). 2013The defendant received the effective assistance of counsel under both the state constitutional standard (see People v Williams, 8 NY3d 854, 855-856 [2007]; People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]; People v West, 105 AD3d 781 [2013]) and the federal constitutional standard (see Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Janick
green
2 sentences2004(People v Payne, 1 Misc 3d 909[A] , 2004 NY Slip Op 50010[U] [Sup Ct, Kings County 2004]; People v Janick, 186 Misc 2d 1 , 7-8 n 3 [Sup Ct, Monroe County 2000] [collecting cases].) . 2004Footnote 7: It would be wholly inappropriate for this court, at nisi prius, to create a separate state constitutional rule. ( People v Payne , 1 Misc 3d 909[A] , 2004 NY Slip Op 50010[U] [Sup Ct, Kings County 2004]; People v Janick , 186 Misc 2d 1 , 7-8 n 3 [Sup Ct, Monroe County 2000] [collecting cases].) Footnote 8: This disposition renders it unnecessary to reach the question whether the People are precluded from having received into evidence Sergeant Riley's testimony during the offer of proof, and the testimony of two other officers on the timing of the discovery of the noncocaine evidenc | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Finn's Liquor Shop, Inc. v. State Liquor Authority
green
2 sentences2004Auth. ( 24 NY2d 647 [1969])].) In none of these cases was a separate state constitutional rule considered. 2004Auth. ( 24 NY2d 647 [1969])].) In none of these cases was a separate state constitutional rule considered. | 2 | 2004–2004 |
People v. Alvarez
green
2 sentences1998In this connection, this Court, in a case involving a ban on consultation between an attorney and his client during a two-hour lunch recess during the defendant’s testimony, pointed out: “Nor do we see any reason why New York courts, in interpreting the State Constitution (art I, § 6), should reject the Federal constitutional standard set forth in Perry [v Leeke, 488 US 272 ], * * * Defendant, however, fails to offer any convincing reason for establishing a State constitutional rule different from the Federal one; he neither suggests any ‘interpretative’ basis, such as significant distinctions 1991Defendant urges adoption of a State rule that "unless trial counsel is seeking to interfere with the orderly processes of the trial[,] * * * he is entitled, within the bounds of professional responsibility and ethics, to communicate with his client on any subject, at any time during the course of trial irrespective of the fact that an opportunity arises during the course of his testimony.” Defendant, however, fails to offer any convincing reason for establishing a State constitutional rule different from the Federal one; he neither suggests any "interpretative” basis, such as significant disti | 2 | 1991–1998 |
People v. P. J. Video, Inc.
green
2 sentences1998Video, 68 NY2d 296, 302 ) nor, in arguing that the State provision should ‘be given a unique reading,’ advances any significant ‘noninterpretive’ consideration, such as the ‘distinctive attitudes’ of New York residents toward the right at issue (People v Alvarez, supra, at 378-379 ).” (People v Enrique, 165 AD2d 13, 21 , affd for reasons stated by Sullivan, J. , 80 NY2d 869 .) The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that in all criminal cases, the accused shall have the assistance of counsel for his defense. 1991Video, 68 NY2d 296, 302 ) nor, in arguing that the State provision should "be given a unique reading,” advances any significant "noninterpretive” consideration, such as the "distinctive attitudes” of New York residents toward the right at issue (People v Alvarez, supra, at 378-379 ). | 2 | 1991–1998 |
Rivera v. Smith
green
2 sentences1988Similarly, a State constitutional challenge to prison regulations requires a balancing of the competing interests at stake: the importance of the right asserted and the extent of the infringement are weighed against the institutional needs and objectives being promoted (see, Matter of Rivera v Smith, 63 NY2d 501, 511 , supra; Cooper v Morin, 49 NY2d 69, 79 ; see, Matter of Doe v Coughlin, 71 NY2d 48, 68 [Alexander, J., dissenting], supra). 1988Finally, in reaching the appropriate balance of factors under either the Federal or State approach, a measure of judicial deference is to be accorded the judgment of correction officials (Pell v Procunier, 417 US 817, 827 , supra; People v Lewis, 68 NY2d 923 ; Matter of Rivera v Smith, 63 NY2d 501, 512-513 , supra). | 2 | 1987–1988 |
| Lyles v. State of NY green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| People v. Cooke green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| High v. Georgia green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Svendsen v. Smith's Moving & Trucking Co. green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Massachusetts v. Hurley green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| People v. Suitte green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| People v. Serrano green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| People ex rel. Gordon v. O'Flynn green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| People v. Colon neutral | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| People v. Torres green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| People v. Havelka green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| United States v. Bender green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| People v. Smith green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| People v. Skinner green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| People v. Settles green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| People v. Samuels green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| MATTER OF HYNES v. Tomei green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| People v. Robinson green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| People v. Woods neutral | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| People v. Brewer green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.