green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
22.7 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Roldan v. Artuz
(3×)
any prejudice to the defendant which might have arisen due to brief mention of uncharged criminal activity which was made at defendant's trial was alleviated when the court sustained defendant's objections and took prompt curative action.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Ward
In any event, we find that the court providently exercised its discretion in denying counsel's motion for a mistrial based on that testimony, and the court's "prompt curative action" was sufficient to minimize any prejudice from the witness's comment ( People v Santiago , 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Maltese (Jennifer)
The court further instructed the jury, during final jury instructions, to disregard any testimony that had been stricken from the record" ( People v Swett , 67 Misc 3d 130[A] , 2020 NY Slip Op 50429[U] , *1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2020] [citations omitted]; see People v Guzman , 76 NY2d 1, 7 [1990]; People v Santiago , 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Bonaparte
Furthermore, defendant's objection to the victim's response was sustained, the response was stricken and a curative instruction was given ( see People v Santiago , 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]; People v White , 79 AD3d 1460 , 1463[*3][2010], lvs denied 17 NY3d 791 , 803 [2011]; People v McCombs , 18 AD3d at 890 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Jackson
The court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendant's mistrial motion, made when the prosecutor's cross-examination of defendant went beyond the court's Sandoval ruling ( see People v Santiago , 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]; People v Young , 48 NY2d 995 [1980]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Jackson
The court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendant's mistrial motion, made when the prosecutor's cross-examination of defendant went beyond the court's Sandoval ruling ( see People v Santiago , 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]; People v Young , 48 NY2d 995 [1980]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Corey
The court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendant's motion for the drastic remedy of a mistrial, made after a statement made by defendant was elicited without CPL 710.30 notice ( see People v Santiago , 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Corey
The court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendant's motion for the drastic remedy of a mistrial, made after a statement made by defendant was elicited without CPL 710.30 notice ( see People v Santiago , 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Karim
Although the jury could have reasonably inferred from a prosecution witness's unsolicited passing remark that defendant had been arrested for an unrelated crime while awaiting trial on the present case, a curative instruction would have alleviated any prejudice ( see People v Santiago , 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Swett (Stephen)
In any event, any prejudice to defendant that might have resulted from that testimony was alleviated when the Justice Court sustained defendant's objection and took prompt curative actions of striking the testimony and instructing the jury to disregard the testimony ( see People v Santiago , 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]; People v Arce , 42 NY2d 179, 187 [1977]; People v Gethers , 151 AD3d 1398 , 1402 [2017]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Gretzinger
The curative action alleviated any prejudice under these circumstances and, accordingly, the initial error did not deprive defendant of a fair trial ( see People v Santiago , 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]; People v Peterson , 118 AD3d 1151, 1155-1156 [2014], lvs denied 24 NY3d 1087 [2014]; People v Hathaway , 159 AD2d 748, 751 [1990]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Rizk
The curative instructions were sufficient to alleviate any prejudice to defendant, and his defense counsel did not make an immediate application seeking further or more complete instructions (People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Smith
The complainant’s reference to the defendant’s possible uncharged crimes during her testimony was brief, defense counsel failed to immediately move for a mistrial, and, once defense counsel moved for a mistrial, the court took curative *1006 action (see People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]; People v Dubois, 116 AD3d 878, 878 [2014]; People v Brown, 106 AD3d 755, 755-756 [2013]; People v Hicks, 84 AD3d 1402, 1402-1403 [2011]; People v Miller, 78 AD3d 733, 734 [2010]; People v Guzman, 239 AD2d 431, 431 [1997]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Richardson
In any event, by striking the testimony and providing a curative instruction, the court minimized any prejudicial effect (see People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Richardson
In any event, by striking the testimony and providing a curative instruction, the court minimized any prejudicial effect (see People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Brooks
The court struck that testimony in response to defendant’s objection and gave curative instructions that were sufficient to alleviate any prejudice (see People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]; People v Dewitt, 126 AD3d 579, 579 [2015]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Brooks
The court struck that testimony in response to defendant’s objection and gave curative instructions that were sufficient to alleviate any prejudice (see People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]; People v Dewitt, 126 AD3d 579, 579 [2015]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Manchester
In light of the fact that the jury never heard that defendant’s prior court appearance involved a criminal matter and the timely curative action taken by County Court, defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by the partial playing of his interview with police (see People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]; People v Peterson, 118 AD3d 1151, 1155-1156 [2014]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Davidson
In this regard, the Supreme Court promptly cut off the inquiry and offered a proper curative instruction that served to ameliorate any prejudicial effect that may have resulted (see People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]; People v DiPippo, 117 AD3d 1076, 1077 [2014]; People v Rich, 78 AD3d 1200, 1201 [2010]; People v Fluellen, 2 AD3d 286, 287 [2003]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Peterson
Defendant was not, however, deprived of a fair trial as a result of the violation, as any prejudice that might have arisen was alleviated when the court struck the question and answer from the record and delivered prompt curative instructions to the jury (see People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]; People v Thompson, 67 AD3d 519, 519 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 806 [2010]; People v Robles, 28 AD3d 233, 233 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 817 [2006]; compare People v Wright, 260 AD2d 935, 937 [1999]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Peterson
Defendant was not, however, deprived of a fair trial as a result of the violation, as any prejudice that might have arisen was alleviated when the court struck the question and answer from the record and delivered prompt curative instructions to the jury (see People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]; People v Thompson, 67 AD3d 519, 519 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 806 [2010]; People v Robles, 28 AD3d 233, 233 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 817 [2006]; compare People v Wright, 260 AD2d 935, 937 [1999]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. DiPippo
Since the jury is presumed to have followed the trial court’s prompt instruction that there was no evidence that the defendant authorized the attempted bribe, such testimony did not provide a basis for the drastic remedy of a mistrial (see generally People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]; People v Leon, 98 AD3d 1065 [2012]; People v Thompson, 81 AD3d 670, 673 [2011]; People v Heath, 70 AD3d 857, 857 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. DiPippo
Since the jury is presumed to have followed the trial court’s prompt instruction that there was no evidence that the defendant authorized the attempted bribe, such testimony did not provide a basis for the drastic remedy of a mistrial (see generally People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]; People v Leon, 98 AD3d 1065 [2012]; People v Thompson, 81 AD3d 670, 673 [2011]; People v Heath, 70 AD3d 857, 857 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Dubois
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his motion for a mistrial based on a prosecution witness’s brief mention of the defendant’s previous arrest record (see People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]; People v Ray, 100 AD3d 933, 933-934 [2012]; People v Hicks, 84 AD3d 1402 [2011]; People v Redmon, 81 AD3d 752 [2011]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Dubois
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his motion for a mistrial based on a prosecution witness’s brief mention of the defendant’s previous arrest record (see People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]; People v Ray, 100 AD3d 933, 933-934 [2012]; People v Hicks, 84 AD3d 1402 [2011]; People v Redmon, 81 AD3d 752 [2011]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Brown
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his motion for a mistrial, since the reference to defendant’s incarceration was brief, counsel failed to object, and counsel declined the trial court’s offer to give a curative instruction (see generally People v Santi ago, 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]; People v Moore, 148 AD2d 754, 754-755 [1989]; People v Banks, 130 AD2d 498, 499 [1987]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Brown
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his motion for a mistrial, since the reference to defendant’s incarceration was brief, counsel failed to object, and counsel declined the trial court’s offer to give a curative instruction (see generally People v Santi ago, 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]; People v Moore, 148 AD2d 754, 754-755 [1989]; People v Banks, 130 AD2d 498, 499 [1987]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Yancey
The offending testimony caused little or no prejudice in the context of the case, and the court took prompt curative action by immediately striking the testimony (see People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Francis
The ex-girlfriend’s unsolicited comment that she knew defendant because she had recently helped him with his cuts after “[h]e was in a fight” did not necessarily suggest criminal history or violent propensity, was only minimally prejudicial, and County Court mitigated any prejudice by striking the answer and directing the jury to disregard it (see People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]; People v Carter, 40 AD3d 1310, 1312-1313 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 873 [2007]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Miller
Any possible prejudice to the defendant was alleviated when the Supreme Court sustained the defendant’s objection and offered to take further curative action (see People v Young, 48 NY2d 995, 996 [1980]; cf. People v Blasich, 73 NY2d 673, 682 [1989]; People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]; People v Ragsdale, 68 AD3d 897, 898 [2009]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. McNeil
Moreover, since the defendant did not challenge the adequacy of the curative instructions before the trial court, such argument is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Santiago, 52 NY2d at 866; People v Reid, 140 AD2d at 640-641 ; People v Watson, 118 AD2d 608, 609 [1986]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Ragsdale
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the granting of a mistrial based on the prosecutor’s alleged violation of the court’s Molineux ruling (see People v Molineux, 168 NY 264 [1901]) would have been unwarranted as the prejudicial effect of the prosecutor’s isolated and brief reference to a prior uncharged crime was not so great that it deprived him of his right to a fair trial in light of the court’s prompt action in striking the prosecutor’s question and issuing curative instructions to the jury (see People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]; People, v Jackson, 59 AD3d 637 [200…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Scott v. Fisher
See CPL § 470.05(2); People v. Grant, 186 A.D.2d 267, 267 [ 588 N.Y.S.2d 326 ] (2d Dep’t 1992) (requiring a “contemporaneous objection to *406 [a] line of questioning” in order to preserve a claim for appellate review); People v. Santiago, 52 N.Y.2d 865, 866 [ 437 N.Y.S.2d 75 , 418 N.E.2d 668 ] (1981) (failure to make “an application seeking further or more complete instructions” precluded defendant from “asserting] the inadequacy of such instructions as error on appeal”); People v. McClain, 250 A.D.2d 871, 873 [ 672 N.Y.S.2d 503 ] (3d Dep’t 1998) (defendant’s failure to ent…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Jackson
The Supreme Court’s prompt action in striking the testimony and issuing curative instructions to the jury alleviated any prejudice to the defendant that may have resulted from such testimony (see People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]; People v Young, 48 NY2d 995, 996 [1980]; People v Brescia, 41 AD3d at 613-614).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Zurn
Defendant’s further contention that the court’s curative instruction was inadequate is not preserved for our review (see People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. McKelvin
The court immediately corrected its inadvertent error and gave a curative instruction that was sufficient to prevent any prejudice (see People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Brescia
Any prejudice to the defendant that might have resulted from such testimony was alleviated by the trial court’s prompt curative instructions to the jury (see People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]; People v Smith, 23 AD3d 415 [2005]; People v Torres, 302 AD2d 411 [2003]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Carter
Viewing this brief comment in light of the entire testimony, the court mitigated any prejudice by striking the answer and providing a prompt curative instruction (see People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]; People v Durant, 6 AD3d 938, 941 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 639 [2004]; People v Birdsall, supra at 880 ; People v Nagi, 153 AD2d 964, 964-965 [1989]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Haynes
The defendant failed to demonstrate that he was substantially prejudiced by the prosecutor’s remarks on summation (see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 401 [1981]; People v White, 196 AD2d 641, 641 [1993]; People v Torres, 121 AD2d 663, 663-664 [1986]), or that any possible prejudice was not cured when the court sustained the defendant’s objections and added a curative instruction to counter the remarks attempting to shift the burden of proof (see People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]; People v Gill, 20 AD3d 434, 435 [2005]; People v Cabrera, 11 AD3d 552, 553 [2004]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Comfort
Given the inadvertence and fleeting nature of that testimony (see People v Greene, 250 AD2d 547 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 925 [1998]; People v Mosley, 170 AD2d 990, 990-991 [1991], lv denied 77 NY2d 964 [1991]), the court’s prompt corrective action was sufficient to alleviate any prejudice (see People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]; Greene, 250 AD2d 547 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Ware
He thus failed to preserve for our review his present contention that the curative instruction was inadequate to alleviate the prejudice arising from the admission of that evidence (see generally People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Smith
Any prejudice caused by the complainant’s brief allusion to the defendant’s custodial status was alleviated by the trial court’s prompt curative instruction to the jury (see People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]; People v Sokolov, 233 AD2d 345, 345-346 [1996]; People v Lockhart, 220 AD2d 690, 691 [1995]; People v Moore, 148 AD2d 754, 755 [1989]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Gill
The defendant failed to demonstrate that he was substantially prejudiced by any allegedly improper comments by the prosecutor on summation (see People v White, 196 AD2d 641 [1993]), or that the trial court’s instructions failed to cure any prejudice (see People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]; People v Cabrera, 11 AD3d 552, 553 [2004]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Benavides
This prompt curative action was sufficient to remedy any error (People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]; People v O’Garro, 293 AD2d 763 [2002]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Resek
In the absence of a timely and specific request or objection to the instruction by defendant, it is unnecessary to reverse the conviction solely on an unpreserved argument regarding the adequacy of jury instructions (see People v Whalen, 59 NY2d 273, 280 [1983]; People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]). 3 Nor do I see evidence in the record that the jury was “divert[ed]” (majority op at 389) from the charges defendant was facing or that defendant was unduly prejudiced by the actions of the trial court.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. McCullough
Defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the limiting instruction is not preserved for our review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]), and we decline to exercise our power to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Shorter
“Any prejudice to the defendant which might have arisen due to the brief mention of uncharged criminal activity which was made at defendant’s trial was alleviated when the court sustained defendant’s objections and took prompt curative action” (People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Mims
Any prejudice that might have arisen therefrom was alleviated when the court sustained defendant’s objection to the questioning and took prompt curative action (see, People v Santiago, supra, at 866; People v Arce, supra, at 187 ).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Burton
County Court sustained defendant’s objection to the question before the witness answered it, thereby alleviating any prejudice to defendant (see, People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865, 866).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Nogueras
The court immediately addressed defendant’s objection to the brief, unsolicited mention by the complaining witness which could have implied that there had been a prior photographic identification by instructing the jury to ignore the comment, thereby dispelling any possible prejudice (see, People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865, 866).
The People of the State of New York
v.
Jose Santiago
v.
Jose Santiago
New York Court of Appeals.
Jan 15, 1981.
418 N.E.2d 668
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Martin Nardi Gamliel for appellant., Mario Meróla, District Attorney (Philip M. Gaynor and Alan D. Marrus of counsel), for respondent.
Cited by 379 opinions | Published
Citer courts: S.D. New York (3)
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
On the record before us, we cannot conclude that the trial court’s failure to grant defendant’s motions for a mistrial was error. Any prejudice to the defendant which might have arisen due to the brief mention of uncharged criminal activity which was made at defendant’s trial was alleviated when the court sustained defendant’s objections and took prompt curative action. Hence, defendant’s motions for a mistrial were properly denied. Moreover, if defendant was of the view that the curative instructions which were given were insufficient, he should have immediately made an application seeking further or more complete instructions. In the absence of such an application, he may not assert the inadequacy of such instructions as error on appeal.
We note also that we find no illegality in the police conduct preceding defendant’s arrest. The initial encounter between defendant and police was lawful because the information supplied by the anonymous informant and the police officer’s observation on the scene furnished the basis for reasonable suspicion. (People v Benjamin, 51 NY2d 267.) Moreover, the minimal intrusion which occurred was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which rendered its initiation permissible. (See, e.g., People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 222; People v Cantor, 36 NY2d 106, 111.)
[*867] Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.