New York Consolidated Laws
N.Y. Criminal Procedure Law § 470.05 (2026)
Determination of appeals; general criteria
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NY-LEGnysenate.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
§ 470.05 Determination of appeals; general criteria. 1. An appellate court must determine an appeal without regard to technical errors or defects which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties. 2. For purposes of appeal, a question of law with respect to a ruling or instruction of a criminal court during a trial or proceeding is presented when a protest thereto was registered, by the party claiming error, at the time of such ruling or instruction or at any subsequent time when the court had an opportunity of effectively changing the same. Such protest need not be in the form of an "exception" but is sufficient if the party made his position with respect to the ruling or instruction known to the court, or if in reponse to a protest by a party, the court expressly decided the question raised on appeal. In addition, a party who without success has either expressly or impliedly sought or requested a particular ruling or instruction, is deemed to have thereby protested the court's ultimate disposition of the matter or failure to rule or instruct accordingly sufficiently to raise a question of law with respect to such disposition or failure regardless of whether any actual protest thereto was registered.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1995–2024 · leading case: Fernandez v. Smith, 558 F. Supp. 2d 480 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).
Fernandez v. Smith, 558 F. Supp. 2d 480 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). “New York’s contemporaneous objection rule, codified in N.Y. Criminal Procedure Law § 470.05 , provides that an issue is preserved for appeal as a matter of law only when the appellant objected on that ground during the trial.”
Jackson v. Conway, 765 F. Supp. 2d 192 (W.D.N.Y. 2011). “Criminal Procedure Law § 470.05(2) provides that that parties must preserve an issue for appellate review by lodging a contemporaneous objection.”
People v. Miller, 2023 NY Slip Op 00219 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023). “Here, the Supreme Court's statements in its October 12, 2021 order regarding a potential exception to the exclusionary rule were mere dicta, which did not influence the court's final determination, and, thus, do not establish, pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 470.05(2), that…”
Okonkwo v. Lacy, 895 F. Supp. 571 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). “1991) (pursuant to N.Y.Criminal Procedure Law § 470.05(2), failure to interpose timely objection rendered claim unpreserved for appellate review), lv .”
Figueroa v. Ercole, 800 F. Supp. 2d 559 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). “The Appellate Division rejected that claim, holding that it was unpreserved because Figueroa failed to satisfy the contemporaneous objection rule, codified in New York’s Criminal Procedure Law § 470.05. Specifically, the Appellate Division concluded that “[Figueroa] based his…”
Rodriguez v. LaValley (E.D.N.Y 2019). “The most common state law procedural ground that arises, the requirement that an issue be preserved by contemporaneous objection, see generally N.Y. Criminal Procedure Law §470.05 (2), has been held to be a firmly established and regularly followed rule for these purposes.”
Mutterperl v. Griffin (E.D.N.Y 2019). “The most common state law procedural ground that arises, the requirement that an issue be preserved by contemporaneous objection, see generally N.Y. Criminal Procedure Law §470.05 (2), has been held to be a firmly established and regularly followed rule for these purposes.”
Whitlock v. LaValley (E.D.N.Y 2019). “The most common state law procedural ground that arises, the requirement that an issue be preserved by contemporaneous objection, see generally N.Y. Criminal Procedure Law §470.05 (2), has been held to be a firmly established and regularly followed rule for these purposes.”
Sistrunk v. Towns (S.D.N.Y. 2024). “New York’s contemporaneous objection rule, codified in Criminal Procedure Law § 470.05(2), encourages parties to bring issues to the attention of the trial court, preserves judicial resources, and protects the finality of criminal prosecutions.”
DOWTIN v. Cohen, 352 F. Supp. 2d 312 (E.D.N.Y 2004). “New York's contemporaneous objection rule, codified in N.Y. Criminal Procedure Law § 470.05 (2), requires both that an objection be lodged at the time of the ruling or "at any subsequent time when the court had an opportunity of effectively changing the same .”
— N.Y. Criminal Procedure Law § 470.05(2) — 4 cases
Jackson v. Conway, 765 F. Supp. 2d 192 (W.D.N.Y. 2011). “Criminal Procedure Law § 470.05(2) provides that that parties must preserve an issue for appellate review by lodging a contemporaneous objection.”
People v. Miller, 2023 NY Slip Op 00219 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023). “Here, the Supreme Court's statements in its October 12, 2021 order regarding a potential exception to the exclusionary rule were mere dicta, which did not influence the court's final determination, and, thus, do not establish, pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 470.05(2), that…”
Okonkwo v. Lacy, 895 F. Supp. 571 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). “1991) (pursuant to N.Y.Criminal Procedure Law § 470.05(2), failure to interpose timely objection rendered claim unpreserved for appellate review), lv .”
Sistrunk v. Towns (S.D.N.Y. 2024). “New York’s contemporaneous objection rule, codified in Criminal Procedure Law § 470.05(2), encourages parties to bring issues to the attention of the trial court, preserves judicial resources, and protects the finality of criminal prosecutions.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.