People v. Staine, 86 A.D.3d 583 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Staine, 86 A.D.3d 583 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
23 citation events (23 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Leggio (nyappdiv, 2025-04-09)
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011 2018 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Leggio
N.Y. App. Div. · 2025 · confidence medium
The court was not required to formally declare or certify the witness to be an expert ( see People v Ratliff , 165 AD3d 845, 846; People v West , 86 AD3d 583, 583-584).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. DiPippo
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his motion to introduce the proffered evidence (see People v Schulz, 4 NY3d 521, 528-529 [2005]; People v Primo, 96 NY2d 351 [2001]; People v West, 86 AD3d 583, 584-585 [2011]; People v Montanez, 78 AD3d 1198 , 1199 [2010]; People v Rodriguez, 295 AD2d 456 [2002]; People v Otero, 288 AD2d 67, 67-68 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. DiPippo
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his motion to introduce the proffered evidence (see People v Schulz, 4 NY3d 521, 528-529 [2005]; People v Primo, 96 NY2d 351 [2001]; People v West, 86 AD3d 583, 584-585 [2011]; People v Montanez, 78 AD3d 1198 , 1199 [2010]; People v Rodriguez, 295 AD2d 456 [2002]; People v Otero, 288 AD2d 67, 67-68 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. King
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court properly precluded evidence of third-party culpability as speculative, lacking in probative value, and constituting inadmissible hearsay (see People v Schulz, 4 NY3d 521, 528-529 [2005]; People v Primo, 96 NY2d 351, 356-357 [2001]; People v West, 86 AD3d 583, 585 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. King
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court properly precluded evidence of third-party culpability as speculative, lacking in probative value, and constituting inadmissible hearsay (see People v Schulz, 4 NY3d 521, 528-529 [2005]; People v Primo, 96 NY2d 351, 356-357 [2001]; People v West, 86 AD3d 583, 585 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Herb
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
The defendant’s contention that certain of the prosecutor’s comments during summation deprived him of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review because he did not object to the challenged comments (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Alexander, 100 AD3d 649, 650 [2012]; People v West, 86 AD3d 583, 584 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Herb
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
The defendant’s contention that certain of the prosecutor’s comments during summation deprived him of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review because he did not object to the challenged comments (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Alexander, 100 AD3d 649, 650 [2012]; People v West, 86 AD3d 583, 584 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Alexander
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
The defendant’s contention, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, that certain comments made by the prosecutor during summation deprived him of a fair trial, is unpreserved for appellate review because he failed to object to any of the comments (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Kinard, 96 AD3d 976, 977 [2012]; People v West, 86 AD3d 583, 584 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Alexander
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
The defendant’s contention, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, that certain comments made by the prosecutor during summation deprived him of a fair trial, is unpreserved for appellate review because he failed to object to any of the comments (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Kinard, 96 AD3d 976, 977 [2012]; People v West, 86 AD3d 583, 584 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Floyd
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
However, since the defendant made only a single general objection to the comments now alleged to have been improper, his contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 911, 912 [2006]; People v Stewart, 89 AD3d 1044, 1045 [2011]; People v Brooks, 89 AD3d 746, 747 [2011]; People v West, 86 AD3d 583, 584 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Robinson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
The defendant’s remaining contentions raised in his pro se supplemental brief regarding the prosecutor’s summation are unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Stewart, 89 AD3d 1044, 1045 [2011]; People v West, 86 AD3d 583, 584 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Adams
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
The defendant’s contentions are unpreserved for appellate review because defense counsel either failed to object, made only general objections to the remarks, or failed to request curative instructions after certain objections were sustained (see People v Stewart, 89 AD3d 1044, 1045 [2011]; People v West, 86 AD3d 583, 584 [2011]; People v Gabriel, 85 AD3d 1201 [2011]; People v Paul, 82 AD3d 1267, 1267-1268 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Rivera
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
The defendant’s contentions that the prosecutor’s allegedly improper questions during cross-examination of him and comments during summation constitute reversible error are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v West, 86 AD3d 583, 584 [2011]; People v Prowse, 60 AD3d 703, 704 [2009]; People v Crawford, 54 AD3d 961, 962 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Stewart
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
The defendant’s challenges to numerous summation remarks made by the prosecutor are largely unpreserved for appellate review because defense counsel either failed to object or made only general objections to the remarks (see People v West, 86 AD3d 583, 585 [2011]; People v Gabriel, 85 AD3d 1201 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 859 [2011]; People v Blanco, 84 AD3d 1392, 1393 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 857 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Brooks
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
The defendant’s contention that certain comments made by the prosecutor during summation were improper and, thus, deprived him of a fair trial, is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]), because he made only a general objection to one of the comments he now challenges (see People v Tonge, 93 NY2d 838 [1999]; People v Nunez, 82 AD3d 1128, 1129 [2011]), and did not object to the other comments he now challenges (see People v West, 86 AD3d 583, 584 [2011]; People v Bajana, 82 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2011]).
The People of the State of New York
v.
Keith Staine
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jul 12, 2011.
86 A.D.3d 583
Published

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed. No opinion. Prudenti, PJ., Rivera, Florio, Belen and Roman, JJ., concur.