§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of P. David Soares,, Respondent,v.William A. Carter,, Appellant, Colin Donnaruma et al., Respondents.

Brief

40 Cited authorities

  1. Berger v. United States

    295 U.S. 78 (1935)   Cited 4,150 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding there was no prejudice when four defendants were tried for a single conspiracy and two separate conspiracies were proven

  2. Matter of Holtzman v. Goldman

    71 N.Y.2d 564 (N.Y. 1988)   Cited 696 times
    Finding that the plain language of the statute authorizing a trial order of dismissal "manifests the Legislature's intention only to grant the court the power to rule on insufficiency, not the power to terminate the proceedings by default"

  3. Matter of Rush v. Mordue

    68 N.Y.2d 348 (N.Y. 1986)   Cited 676 times
    In Matter of Rush v Mordue (68 NY2d 348, supra) and Matter of Brockway v Monroe (59 NY2d 179), the Court of Appeals recognized that prohibition would lie where the case involves a claim that a prosecution is improper because it is barred by immunity.

  4. Brown v. Appelman

    241 A.D.2d 279 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)   Cited 345 times
    Denying pre-indictment request by defendant to photograph the crime scene at which a murder occurred in a case in which the death penalty was available

  5. M. C. Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Texas Foundries, Inc.

    424 U.S. 968 (1976)   Cited 196 times

    No. 75-1083. March 22, 1976, OCTOBER TERM, 1975. C.A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 517 F. 2d 1059.

  6. Environmental Protection v. D.E.C

    70 N.Y.2d 233 (N.Y. 1987)   Cited 255 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Decided September 8, 1987 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department. David Simon, Gerald A. Novack and Carol D. Quackenbos for Central Hudson Gas Electric Corporation, Inc., intervenor-appellant. Michael A. Wilcken for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., intervenor-appellant. Peter L. Zimroth, Corporation Counsel (Nicole A. Gordon, Leonard Koerner and Stephen J. McGrath of counsel), for respondent-movant. James T.B. Tripp and Michael Herz

  7. People v. Yut Wai Tom

    53 N.Y.2d 44 (N.Y. 1981)   Cited 283 times
    In Yut Wai Tom, "the most prejudicial conduct of the Trial Judge... was his constant interruption of defense counsel's cross-examination to ask questions which would only be proper as redirect examination if asked by the prosecutor" (Yut Wai Tom, 53 NY2d at 59).

  8. People v. Carter

    91 N.Y.2d 795 (N.Y. 1998)   Cited 155 times
    In Carter, the court considered the implications of sending a statement of readiness to the wrong address for three defendants and found that the prosecution had attempted to notify the defendants at their last known address and "[i]n the absence of proof that the readiness statement did not accurately reflect the People's position or that the mailing was made in bad faith, the People had discharged their duty under CPL 30.30" (seeCarter at 799, 676 N.Y.S.2d 523, 699 N.E.2d 35 [emphasis added]).

  9. La Rocca v. Lane

    37 N.Y.2d 575 (N.Y. 1975)   Cited 271 times
    Upholding prohibition dismissal

  10. Matter of Dondi v. Jones

    40 N.Y.2d 8 (N.Y. 1976)   Cited 250 times
    In Matter of Dondi v Jones (40 N.Y.2d 8, 13, supra), we recognized that prohibition would be an appropriate remedy if it were found that a Special Prosecutor was exceeding the authority conferred upon him through Executive Order by prosecuting a particular criminal defendant under an existing indictment.