People v. Moore, 78 A.D.3d 1658 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Moore, 78 A.D.3d 1658 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
56 citation events (56 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Austin (nyappdiv, 2025-10-03)
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011 2018 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 29 distinct citers.
examined Cited as authority (rule) People v. Austin (3×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2025 · confidence medium
The witness testified that the vehicle had a broken driver-side window, and that she heard the man state that the victims of the shooting should not have been out so late, and that he "didn't mean for that to happen to them." Contrary to defendant's contention, the evidence did not merely establish defendant's presence near the crime scene, but also his complicity in the crimes of which he was convicted ( see People v Hancock , 229 AD3d 1229, 1230-1231 [4th Dept [*2]2024], lv denied 42 NY3d 1020 [2024]; see generally People v Reed , 97 AD3d 1142, 1143 [4th Dept 2012], affd 22 NY3d 530 [2014], …
examined Cited as authority (rule) People v. Rhynes (3×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2025 · confidence medium
The evidence of defendant's prior drug sales to the victim was relevant on the issue of identity, and its probative value exceeded its prejudicial effect ( see People v Young , 190 AD3d 1087, 1092-1093 [3d Dept 2021], lv denied 36 NY3d 1102 [2021]; People v Moore [appeal No. 2], 78 AD3d 1658, 1659 [4th Dept 2010]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Hills
N.Y. App. Div. · 2025 · confidence medium
With respect to the merits, however, we conclude that evidence that defendant had sold drugs to a witness was necessary background evidence, which was introduced to explain how and why the witness loaned defendant her vehicle hours before the shooting and saw him driving the vehicle shortly after the shooting ( see People v Resto , 147 AD3d 1331 , 1332-1333 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1000 [2017], reconsideration denied 29 NY3d 1094 [2017]; People v Jackson , 100 AD3d 1258 , 1261 [3d Dept 2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 1005 [2013], reconsideration denied 21 NY3d 1043 [2013]; People v Moore [a…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Scott
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · confidence medium
The fact that no eyewitness to the shooting identified defendant as the person who fired the weapon does not render the evidence legally insufficient inasmuch as there was ample circumstantial evidence and other testimony establishing defendant's identity as the shooter ( see People v Suarez , 175 AD3d 1036 , 1037 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 34 NY3d 1082 [2019]; People v Clark , 142 AD3d 1339 , 1340-1341 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1143 [2017]; People v Moore [appeal No. 2], 78 AD3d 1658, 1659 [4th Dept 2010]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Suarez
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · confidence medium
The People presented evidence establishing every element of the crimes charged and defendant's commission thereof ( see generally People v Moore , 78 AD3d 1658, 1659 [4th Dept 2010]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Henry (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
Although we agree with our dissenting colleagues that "the fact that no one saw [defendant] fire the shot[s] that killed the victim does not render the evidence legally [*2]insufficient" ( People v Moore [appeal No. 2], 78 AD3d 1658, 1659 [4th Dept 2010]), we are compelled to conclude that the People's evidence is legally insufficient to establish that defendant was the shooter, and thus the People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant is guilty of murder in the first degree ( see generally People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Jackson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
“It is well settled that, even in circumstantial evidence cases, the standard for appellate review of legal sufficiency issues is whether any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the fact finder on the basis of the evidence at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the People” (People v Moore [appeal No. 2], 78 AD3d 1658, 1659 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) JACKSON, RASHEED, PEOPLE v
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
“It is well settled that, even in circumstantial evidence cases, the standard of appellate review of legal sufficiency issues is whether any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the fact finder on the basis of the evidence at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the People” (People v Moore [appeal No. 2], 78 AD3d 1658, 1659 [internal quotation marks omitted]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Jackson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
“It is well settled that, even in circumstantial evidence cases, the standard for appellate review of legal sufficiency issues is whether any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the fact finder on the basis of the evidence at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the People” (People v Moore [appeal No. 2], 78 AD3d 1658, 1659 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Scarver
unknown court · 2014 · confidence medium
We reject defendant’s contention, advanced in his main and pro se supplemental briefs, that Supreme Court erred in admitting the parole identification card in evidence, inasmuch as the card was highly relevant to the issue of identity and its probative value exceeded its prejudicial effect (see generally People v Clemmons, 83 AD3d 859, 860 [2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 971 [2012]; People v Moore [appeal No. 2], 78 AD3d 1658, 1659 [2010]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Scarver
unknown court · 2014 · confidence medium
We reject defendant’s contention, advanced in his main and pro se supplemental briefs, that Supreme Court erred in admitting the parole identification card in evidence, inasmuch as the card was highly relevant to the issue of identity and its probative value exceeded its prejudicial effect (see generally People v Clemmons, 83 AD3d 859, 860 [2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 971 [2012]; People v Moore [appeal No. 2], 78 AD3d 1658, 1659 [2010]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Coles
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Defendant’s contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction of those counts is preserved for our review only insofar as he contends that the two main prosecution witnesses were not credible (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]), and that contention is without merit (see People v Moore [appeal No. 2], 78 AD3d 1658, 1659 [2010]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Coles
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Defendant’s contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction of those counts is preserved for our review only insofar as he contends that the two main prosecution witnesses were not credible (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]), and that contention is without merit (see People v Moore [appeal No. 2], 78 AD3d 1658, 1659 [2010]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Madera
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Defendant, however, failed to preserve either contention for our review (see People v Hunt, 74 AD3d 1741, 1742 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 806 [2010]; People v Francis, 63 AD3d 1644, 1645 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 835 [2009]; see also People v Allen, 93 AD3d 1144, 1146 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 956 [2012]; People v Moore [appeal No. 2], 78 AD3d 1658, 1659 [2010]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Madera
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Defendant, however, failed to preserve either contention for our review (see People v Hunt, 74 AD3d 1741, 1742 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 806 [2010]; People v Francis, 63 AD3d 1644, 1645 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 835 [2009]; see also People v Allen, 93 AD3d 1144, 1146 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 956 [2012]; People v Moore [appeal No. 2], 78 AD3d 1658, 1659 [2010]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Wilson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Defendant failed to request a limiting instruction concerning evidence of the barring order and thus did not preserve for our review his contention that the court should have issued such an instruction after that evidence was admitted (see People v Moore [appeal No. 2], 78 AD3d 1658, 1659 [2010] ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Wilson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Defendant failed to request a limiting instruction concerning evidence of the barring order and thus did not preserve for our review his contention that the court should have issued such an instruction after that evidence was admitted (see People v Moore [appeal No. 2], 78 AD3d 1658, 1659 [2010] ).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Enderlin
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
Defendant’s failure to preserve that issue for our review or, indeed, to raise it on appeal “is of no moment, inasmuch as we cannot permit an illegal sentence to stand” (People v Terry, 90 AD3d 1571, 1572 [2011]; see People v Moore [appeal No. 1], 78 AD3d 1658 , 1658 [2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 798 [2011]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Enderlin
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
Defendant’s failure to preserve that issue for our review or, indeed, to raise it on appeal “is of no moment, inasmuch as we cannot permit an illegal sentence to stand” (People v Terry, 90 AD3d 1571, 1572 [2011]; see People v Moore [appeal No. 1], 78 AD3d 1658 , 1658 [2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 798 [2011]).
discussed Cited "see" ENDERLIN, GLENN T., PEOPLE v
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
Defendant’s failure to preserve that issue for our review or, indeed, to raise it on appeal “is of no moment, inasmuch as we cannot permit an illegal sentence to stand” (People v Terry, 90 AD3d 1571, 1572 ; see People v Moore [appeal No. 1], 78 AD3d 1658, 1658 , lv denied 17 NY3d 798 ).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Dekenipp
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
“Although this issue was not raised before the [sentencing] court or on appeal, we cannot allow an [illegal] sentence to stand” (People v Davis, 37 AD3d 1179, 1180 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 983 [2007] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see generally People v Moore [appeal No. 1], 78 AD3d 1658 , 1658 [2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 798 [2011]). “[Sentences imposed for two or more offenses may not run consecutively: (1) where a single act constitutes two offenses, or (2) where a single act constitutes one of the offenses and a material element of the other” (People v Ramirez, 89 NY2d 444, 451 …
discussed Cited "see" DEKENIPP, RICHARD A., PEOPLE v
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
“Although this issue was not raised before the [sentencing] court or on appeal, we cannot allow an [illegal] sentence to stand” (People v Davis, 37 AD3d 1179, 1180 , lv denied 8 NY3d 983 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see generally People v Moore [appeal No. 1], 78 AD3d 1658, 1658 , lv denied 17 NY3d 798 ). “[S]entences imposed for two or more offenses may not run consecutively: (1) where a single act constitutes two offenses, or (2) where a single act constitutes one of the offenses and a material element of the other” (People v Ramirez, 89 NY2d 444, 451 [internal quotation marks…
discussed Cited "see" People v. Dekenipp
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
“Although this issue was not raised before the [sentencing] court or on appeal, we cannot allow an [illegal] sentence to stand” (People v Davis, 37 AD3d 1179, 1180 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 983 [2007] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see generally People v Moore [appeal No. 1], 78 AD3d 1658 , 1658 [2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 798 [2011]). “[Sentences imposed for two or more offenses may not run consecutively: (1) where a single act constitutes two offenses, or (2) where a single act constitutes one of the offenses and a material element of the other” (People v Ramirez, 89 NY2d 444, 451 …
discussed Cited "see" People v. Westbrooks
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
Although there were various inconsistencies in the victim’s trial testimony, it cannot be said that her testimony was “manifestly untrue, physically impossible, contrary to experience, or self-contradictory” (People v Harris, 56 AD3d 1267 , 1268 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 925 [2009]; see People v Moore [appeal No. 2], 78 AD3d 1658, 1659-1660 [2010]).
discussed Cited "see" WESTBROOKS, MARK, PEOPLE v
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
Although there were various inconsistencies in the victim’s trial testimony, it cannot be said that her testimony was “manifestly untrue, physically impossible, contrary to experience, or self-contradictory” (People v Harris, 56 AD3d 1267 , 1268, lv denied 11 NY3d 925 ; see People v Moore [appeal No. 2], 78 AD3d 1658, 1659-1660 ).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Newman
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
It cannot be said that his testimony was “manifestly untrue, physically impossible, contrary to experience, or self-contradictory” (People v Harris, 56 AD3d 1267 , 1268 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 925 [2009]; see People v Moore [appeal No. 2], 78 AD3d 1658, 1659-1660 [2010]).
discussed Cited "see" NEWMAN, RODNEY M., PEOPLE v
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
It cannot be said that his testimony was “manifestly untrue, physically impossible, contrary to experience, or self-contradictory” (People v Harris, 56 AD3d 1267 , 1268, lv denied 11 NY3d 925 ; see People v Moore [appeal No. 2], 78 AD3d 1658, 1659-1660 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Graham
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · signal: see also · confidence low
The court properly determined that the photographs were admissible because they were relevant to establish defendant's identity as the shooter, and the probative value outweighed any prejudicial impact ( see People v Alexander , 169 AD3d 571 , 571 [1st Dept 2019]; People v Bailey , 14 AD3d 362, 363 [1st Dept 2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 851 [2005]; see also People v Moore [appeal No. 2], 78 AD3d 1658 , 1659 [4th Dept 2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 798 [2011]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Spagnuolo
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Contrary to defendant's contention, "even if a witness has an unsavory and criminal background, and testifie[s] pursuant to a cooperation agreement,' such facts merely raise credibility issues for the jury to resolve" ( People v Barnes , 158 AD3d 1072 , 1072 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1011 [2018]; see People v Golson , 93 AD3d 1218 , 1219 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 864 [2012]; see also People v Moore [appeal No. 2], 78 AD3d 1658, 1659-1660 [4th Dept 2010]), and here we perceive no basis on which to reject the jury's credibility determinations.
The People of the State of New York
v.
Calvin Moore
Appeal No. 1.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Nov 19, 2010.
78 A.D.3d 1658
Cited by 37 opinions  |  Published

Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Joseph E. Fahey, J), rendered October 22, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by reducing the period of postrelease supervision to a period of one year and as modified the judgment is affirmed.

. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]) and sentencing him to a determinate term of imprisonment of six years plus five years of postrelease supervision (PRS). We conclude that the sentence is illegal insofar as the period of PRS exceeds two years (see Penal Law § 70.45 [2] [b]). “ ‘Although [that] issue was not raised before the [sentencing] court or on appeal, we cannot allow an [illegal] sentence to stand’ ” (People v Davis, 37 AD3d 1179, 1180, [2007] lv denied 8 NY3d 983 [2007]). We thus conclude that the judgment must be modified with respect to the period of PRS, and we modify the judgment by reducing the period of PRS to a period of one year (see People v Gibson, 52 AD3d 1227 [2008]; People v Ehrhardt, 292 AD2d 790 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 675 [2002]). The sentence as modified is not unduly harsh or severe. Present — Smith, J.P., Lindley, Sconiers, Pine and Gorski, JJ.