44 New York opinions name it 5 courts 1909–2025 6 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. Lopezgreen2 sentences2015Defendant likewise failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]), and this case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation rule (see id. at 666 ). 2009Although that contention is not encompassed by the invalid waiver of the right to appeal, defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]; People v Collins, 45 AD3d 1472 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 861 [2008]). | 5 | 7 |
People v. Lopezgreen2 sentences2024In light of the invalid waiver of appeal, defendant [*2]is not precluded from challenging the perceived severity of the agreed-upon sentence ( see People v Lopez , 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Manson , 205 AD3d 1150, 1151-1152 [3d Dept 2022]). 2022In light of the invalid waiver of appeal, defendant is not precluded from challenging the perceived severity of the agreed-upon sentence ( see People v Lopez , 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). | 3 | 4 |
People v. Wilsongreen2 sentences2015Nevertheless, “[a]lthough defendant’s contention that the plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered thus is not precluded by the invalid waiver, he failed to preserve that contention for our review inasmuch as he did not move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction” (P eople v Jones, 118 AD3d 1354, 1354 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 961 [2014]; see People v Wilson, 117 AD3d 1476, 1477 [2014]). 2015Nevertheless, “[a]lthough defendant’s contention that the plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered thus is not precluded by the invalid waiver, he failed to preserve that contention for our review inasmuch as he did not move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction” (P eople v Jones, 118 AD3d 1354, 1354 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 961 [2014]; see People v Wilson, 117 AD3d 1476, 1477 [2014]). | 3 | 3 |
Case Industrial Supply Co. v. Truck Drivers & Helpers Local 317green2 sentences2014By directing the parties to submit presentence memoranda to be appended to the record, County Court afforded defendant with ample opportunity to address the purported inaccuracies of the presentence investigative report (see CPL 390.40; People v Santos, 109 AD2d 901, 901-902 [1985], lv denied 66 NY2d 922 [1985]; People v Ranieri, 43 AD2d 1012, 1012 [1974]). 2014By directing the parties to submit presentence memoranda to be appended to the record, County Court afforded defendant with ample opportunity to address the purported inaccuracies of the presentence investigative report (see CPL 390.40; People v Santos, 109 AD2d 901, 901-902 [1985], lv denied 66 NY2d 922 [1985]; People v Ranieri, 43 AD2d 1012, 1012 [1974]). | 3 | 3 |
People v. Santosgreen2 sentences2014By directing the parties to submit presentence memoranda to be appended to the record, County Court afforded defendant with ample opportunity to address the purported inaccuracies of the presentence investigative report (see CPL 390.40; People v Santos, 109 AD2d 901, 901-902 [1985], lv denied 66 NY2d 922 [1985]; People v Ranieri, 43 AD2d 1012, 1012 [1974]). 2014By directing the parties to submit presentence memoranda to be appended to the record, County Court afforded defendant with ample opportunity to address the purported inaccuracies of the presentence investigative report (see CPL 390.40; People v Santos, 109 AD2d 901, 901-902 [1985], lv denied 66 NY2d 922 [1985]; People v Ranieri, 43 AD2d 1012, 1012 [1974]). | 3 | 3 |
People v. Schultzgreen2 sentences2015Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal was valid, we conclude that it would not encompass his challenge to the 10% restitution surcharge because County Court failed to advise defendant before he waived his right to appeal of the potential surcharge that could be imposed as part of the requirement to pay restitution (see People v Schultz, 117 AD3d 1560, 1560 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1067 [2014]). 2015Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal was valid, we conclude that it would not encompass his challenge to the 10% restitution surcharge because County Court failed to advise defendant before he waived his right to appeal of the potential surcharge that could be imposed as part of the requirement to pay restitution (see People v Schultz, 117 AD3d 1560, 1560 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1067 [2014]). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2015Nevertheless, “[a]lthough defendant’s contention that the plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered thus is not precluded by the invalid waiver, he failed to preserve that contention for our review inasmuch as he did not move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction” (P eople v Jones, 118 AD3d 1354, 1354 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 961 [2014]; see People v Wilson, 117 AD3d 1476, 1477 [2014]). 2015Nevertheless, “[a]lthough defendant’s contention that the plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered thus is not precluded by the invalid waiver, he failed to preserve that contention for our review inasmuch as he did not move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction” (P eople v Jones, 118 AD3d 1354, 1354 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 961 [2014]; see People v Wilson, 117 AD3d 1476, 1477 [2014]). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Robinsongreen2 sentences2014Although defendant’s contention that the plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered thus is not precluded by the invalid waiver, he failed to preserve that contention for our review inasmuch as he did not move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Robinson, 112 AD3d 1349, 1349 [2013]). 2014Although defendant’s contention that the plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered thus is not precluded by the invalid waiver, he failed to preserve that contention for our review inasmuch as he did not move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Robinson, 112 AD3d 1349, 1349 [2013]). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Evansgreen2 sentences2013Moreover, the exception to the preservation requirement is inapplicable inasmuch as defendant did not make any statements that were inconsistent with his guilt or that called into question the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Teele, 92 AD3d at 972 ; People v Jones, 88 AD3d 1029, 1029 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 859 [2011]). 2013Moreover, the exception to the preservation requirement is inapplicable inasmuch as defendant did not make any statements that were inconsistent with his guilt or that called into question the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Teele, 92 AD3d at 972 ; People v Jones, 88 AD3d 1029, 1029 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 859 [2011]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Klagesgreen2 sentences2013While not precluded by the invalid waiver, this issue is unpreserved as the record before us indicates that defendant has failed to move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Teele, 92 AD3d 972, 972 [2012]; People v Klages, 90 AD3d 1149, 1150 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 925 [2012] ). 2013While not precluded by the invalid waiver, this issue is unpreserved as the record before us indicates that defendant has failed to move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Teele, 92 AD3d 972, 972 [2012]; People v Klages, 90 AD3d 1149, 1150 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 925 [2012] ). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Teelegreen2 sentences2013While not precluded by the invalid waiver, this issue is unpreserved as the record before us indicates that defendant has failed to move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Teele, 92 AD3d 972, 972 [2012]; People v Klages, 90 AD3d 1149, 1150 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 925 [2012] ). 2013While not precluded by the invalid waiver, this issue is unpreserved as the record before us indicates that defendant has failed to move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Teele, 92 AD3d 972, 972 [2012]; People v Klages, 90 AD3d 1149, 1150 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 925 [2012] ). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Fordgreen2 sentences2009We nevertheless conclude, however, that defendant’s contention lacks merit (see People v Gross, 50 AD3d 1577 [2008]; see generally People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]). 2009We nevertheless conclude that defendant’s contention lacks merit (see generally People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Crampegreen2 sentences2025"Although post-colloquy proceedings cannot retrospectively cur[e] an invalid waiver, the record as a whole may . . . be considered when a court assesses whether the accused [was] aware of the dangers of self-representation at the time of the waiver colloquy" ( id. [internal quotation marks omitted]). 2024As the majority correctly recognizes, "post-colloquy proceedings cannot 'retrospectively "cure" an invalid waiver'" (majority op at 8, quoting People v Crampe , 17 NY3d 469, 483 [2011] [internal quotation marks omitted and alteration incorporated]). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Melsongreen2 sentences2012Although defendant’s contention that the court abused its discretion in failing to adjudicate him a youthful offender is not encompassed by the invalid waiver of the right to appeal, we nevertheless reject that contention. “ ‘The determination . . . whether to grant . . . youthful offender status rests within the sound discretion of the court and depends upon all the attending facts and circumstances of the case’ ” (People v Dawson, 71 AD3d 1490, 1490 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 749 [2010]). 2012Although defendant’s contention that the court abused its discretion in failing to adjudicate him a youthful offender is not encompassed by the invalid waiver of the right to appeal, we nevertheless reject that contention. “ ‘The determination . . . whether to grant . . . youthful offender status rests within the sound discretion of the court and depends upon all the attending facts and circumstances of the case’ ” (People v Dawson, 71 AD3d 1490, 1490 , lv denied 15 NY3d 749 ). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Ramirezgreen1 sentence2024In light of the invalid waiver of appeal, defendant [*2]is not precluded from challenging the perceived severity of the agreed-upon sentence ( see People v Lopez , 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Manson , 205 AD3d 1150, 1151-1152 [3d Dept 2022]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Kimballgreen1 sentence2024In light of the invalid waiver, defendant's challenge to the severity of the sentence imposed is not precluded ( see People v Kimball , 213 AD3d 1028, 1029 [3d Dept 2023], lv denied 40 NY3d 929 [2023]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Torresgreen1 sentence2022Given the invalid waiver, defendant's challenge to the sentence imposed is not precluded ( see People v Torres , 205 AD3d 1211, 1212 [2022]). | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Metayeogreen | 1 | 1 |
People v. Ruisegreen1 sentence2018That said, given defendant's lengthy criminal history and the fact that he received a favorable plea agreement that resolved a number of pending charges, we discern no extraordinary circumstances or abuse of discretion warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice ( see generally People v Suddard , 164 AD3d 950 , 951 [2018]; People v Ruise , 131 AD3d 1328, 1328 [2015]). | 1 | 1 |
Mitchell v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2018Contrary to defendant's assertion, Supreme Court's comments at the time of sentencing [*2]did not violate defendant's rights under the Fifth Amendment, nor did the sentence ultimately imposed by the court violate defendant's rights under the Eighth Amendment ( see People v Brady , 97 NY2d 233, 236-237 [2002]; compare Mitchell v United States , 526 US 314 [1999]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Walleygreen1 sentence2018In light of the invalid waiver, defendant is not precluded from challenging the severity of the sentence imposed ( see People v Metayeo , 155 AD3d 1239, 1240 [2017]; People v Walley , 150 AD3d 1334, 1334-1335 [2017]), but we find his arguments on this point to be lacking in merit. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bradygreen1 sentence2018Contrary to defendant's assertion, Supreme Court's comments at the time of sentencing [*2]did not violate defendant's rights under the Fifth Amendment, nor did the sentence ultimately imposed by the court violate defendant's rights under the Eighth Amendment ( see People v Brady , 97 NY2d 233, 236-237 [2002]; compare Mitchell v United States , 526 US 314 [1999]). | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Glovergreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Twilliegreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Ortizgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Oliverigreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Stokelygreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Morgangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ernst & Young LLP v. National Union Fire Insurancegreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Jacksongreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Williamsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Atwoodgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Campbellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Adamsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Fernandezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Fergusongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Leary v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. McCalebgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Terragreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rosenbluth v. Sackadorfgreen | 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. Hartman
neutral
2 sentences2013Moreover, the exception to the preservation requirement is inapplicable inasmuch as defendant did not make any statements that were inconsistent with his guilt or that called into question the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Teele, 92 AD3d at 972 ; People v Jones, 88 AD3d 1029, 1029 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 859 [2011]). 2013Moreover, the exception to the preservation requirement is inapplicable inasmuch as defendant did not make any statements that were inconsistent with his guilt or that called into question the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Teele, 92 AD3d at 972 ; People v Jones, 88 AD3d 1029, 1029 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 859 [2011]). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Melendez v. Berbary
green
2 sentences2011That contention, however, is raised for the first time on appeal and thus is not preserved for our review (see generally People v Howard, 71 AD3d 1443 , lv denied 15 NY3d 751 ; People v Dumbleton, 67 AD3d 1451 , lv denied 14 NY3d 770 ; People v Buckman, 66 AD3d 1400, 1401 , lv denied 13 NY3d 937 ), and we decline to exercise our power to review defendant’s contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). 2011That contention, however, is raised for the first time on appeal and thus is not preserved for our review (see generally People v Howard, 71 AD3d 1443 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 751 [2010]; People v Dumbleton, 67 AD3d 1451 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 770 [2010]; People v Buckman, 66 AD3d 1400 , 1401 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 937 [2010]), and we decline to exercise our power to review defendant’s contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
People v. Dumbleton
green
2 sentences2011That contention, however, is raised for the first time on appeal and thus is not preserved for our review (see generally People v Howard, 71 AD3d 1443 , lv denied 15 NY3d 751 ; People v Dumbleton, 67 AD3d 1451 , lv denied 14 NY3d 770 ; People v Buckman, 66 AD3d 1400, 1401 , lv denied 13 NY3d 937 ), and we decline to exercise our power to review defendant’s contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). 2011That contention, however, is raised for the first time on appeal and thus is not preserved for our review (see generally People v Howard, 71 AD3d 1443 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 751 [2010]; People v Dumbleton, 67 AD3d 1451 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 770 [2010]; People v Buckman, 66 AD3d 1400 , 1401 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 937 [2010]), and we decline to exercise our power to review defendant’s contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
People v. Howard
neutral
2 sentences2011That contention, however, is raised for the first time on appeal and thus is not preserved for our review (see generally People v Howard, 71 AD3d 1443 , lv denied 15 NY3d 751 ; People v Dumbleton, 67 AD3d 1451 , lv denied 14 NY3d 770 ; People v Buckman, 66 AD3d 1400, 1401 , lv denied 13 NY3d 937 ), and we decline to exercise our power to review defendant’s contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). 2011That contention, however, is raised for the first time on appeal and thus is not preserved for our review (see generally People v Howard, 71 AD3d 1443 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 751 [2010]; People v Dumbleton, 67 AD3d 1451 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 770 [2010]; People v Buckman, 66 AD3d 1400 , 1401 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 937 [2010]), and we decline to exercise our power to review defendant’s contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
People v. Elmore
neutral
2 sentences2011That contention, however, is raised for the first time on appeal and thus is not preserved for our review (see generally People v Howard, 71 AD3d 1443 , lv denied 15 NY3d 751 ; People v Dumbleton, 67 AD3d 1451 , lv denied 14 NY3d 770 ; People v Buckman, 66 AD3d 1400, 1401 , lv denied 13 NY3d 937 ), and we decline to exercise our power to review defendant’s contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). 2011That contention, however, is raised for the first time on appeal and thus is not preserved for our review (see generally People v Howard, 71 AD3d 1443 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 751 [2010]; People v Dumbleton, 67 AD3d 1451 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 770 [2010]; People v Buckman, 66 AD3d 1400 , 1401 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 937 [2010]), and we decline to exercise our power to review defendant’s contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
People v. Buckman
green
2 sentences2011That contention, however, is raised for the first time on appeal and thus is not preserved for our review (see generally People v Howard, 71 AD3d 1443 , lv denied 15 NY3d 751 ; People v Dumbleton, 67 AD3d 1451 , lv denied 14 NY3d 770 ; People v Buckman, 66 AD3d 1400, 1401 , lv denied 13 NY3d 937 ), and we decline to exercise our power to review defendant’s contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). 2011That contention, however, is raised for the first time on appeal and thus is not preserved for our review (see generally People v Howard, 71 AD3d 1443 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 751 [2010]; People v Dumbleton, 67 AD3d 1451 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 770 [2010]; People v Buckman, 66 AD3d 1400 , 1401 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 937 [2010]), and we decline to exercise our power to review defendant’s contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
People v. Gimenez
green
2 sentences2009The contention of defendant that he was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel therefore survives the invalid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Campbell, 62 AD3d 1265 [2009]), and it survives the plea to the extent that he contends that the plea was infected by the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel (see People v Gimenez, 59 AD3d 1088 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 816 [2009]; cf. People v Oliveri, 49 AD3d 1208, 1209 [2008]). 2009The further contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel therefore survives the invalid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v D’Agostino, 55 AD3d 353 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 924 [2009]; People v Stokely, 49 AD3d 966, 968 [2008]), and it survives the plea to the extent that defendant contends that the plea was infected by the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel (see People v Gimenez, 59 AD3d 1088 [2009]). | 2 | 2009–2009 |
People v. Chandler
green
1 sentence2025Here, we note initially that defendant "does not dispute that his request to represent himself was unequivocal" under the first prong of the McIntyre test ( People v Chandler , 109 AD3d 1202 , 1203 [4th Dept 2013], lv denied 23 NY3d 1019 [2014]). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Suitte
green
1 sentence2019However, the sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v Suitte , 90 AD2d 80 ). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| People v. D'Agostino neutral | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| People v. Campbell green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| People v. Jonathan R. green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| People v. Forsythe green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| People v. Burton green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| People v. Deas green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| People v. Pease green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| People v. Potter green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Call v. Banner Metals, Inc. green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| People v. Gross green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| People v. Watkins green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| People v. Crowley green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Hicksville Dry Cleaners, Inc. v. Stanley Fastening Systems, L.P. green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| People v. Powers green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| In re Grenfell green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Matter of Grenfell (Lawyer) neutral | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Shohfi v. Shohfi neutral | 1 | 1971–1971 |
| Eachus v. Colorado green | 1 | 1970–1970 |
| Ochs v. . Woods green | 1 | 1949–1949 |
| Reno v. . Bull green | 1 | 1949–1949 |
| In Re the Accounting of Watson neutral | 1 | 1931–1931 |
| In re the Judicial Settlement of the Accounts of Watson neutral | 1 | 1931–1931 |
| In re Saunders' Estate neutral | 1 | 1931–1931 |
| Dye v. Kerr neutral | 1 | 1931–1931 |
| Trombly v. . Turner neutral | 1 | 1921–1921 |
| Minch v. Mail & Express Co. green | 1 | 1921–1921 |
| O'Connor v. Bauer neutral | 1 | 1921–1921 |
| Sands v. . Hughes green | 1 | 1913–1913 |
| Jackson ex dem. Young & Devereux v. Camp neutral | 1 | 1913–1913 |
| Oxley v. . Lane green | 1 | 1909–1909 |
| Tiers v. . Tiers green | 1 | 1909–1909 |
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.