24 Cited authorities

  1. People v. O'Rama

    78 N.Y.2d 270 (N.Y. 1991)   Cited 475 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding the defendant was prejudiced when the court failed to read a portion of the jury note stating jury was split "6/6," told counsel the jury was experiencing "continued disagreements," and subsequently issued a supplemental instruction urging a verdict
  2. People v. Patterson

    39 N.Y.2d 288 (N.Y. 1976)   Cited 414 times
    In Patterson the Court did not even mention Mullaney until after it had concluded that the issue on the merits was within the special category that always deserves review despite the absence of contemporaneous objection.
  3. People v. Starling

    650 N.E.2d 387 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 183 times
    Holding that "the statutory definition of the term [sell] conspicuously excludes any requirement that the transfer be commercial in nature or conducted for a particular type of benefit or underlying purpose"
  4. People v. Kisoon

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 1194 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 127 times
    In People v. Kisoon, 8 N.Y.3d 129, 132, 831 N.Y.S.2d 738, 739 (2007), the New York Court of Appeals considered "whether a trial court committed a mode of proceedings error when it failed to disclose... a jury note.
  5. People v. Alcide

    2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 6598 (N.Y. 2013)   Cited 71 times

    2013-10-10 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James ALCIDE, Appellant. Lynn W.L. Fahey, Appellate Advocates, New York City (Melissa S. Horlick of counsel), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn (Leonard Job-love and Keith Dolan of counsel), for respondent. READ Lynn W.L. Fahey, Appellate Advocates, New York City (Melissa S. Horlick of counsel), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn (Leonard Job-love and Keith Dolan of counsel), for respondent

  6. People v. Tabb

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 8679 (N.Y. 2009)   Cited 70 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an "absence of record proof constituted "a mode of proceedings error . . . requiring reversal"
  7. People v. Ramirez

    935 N.E.2d 791 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 66 times
    In People v. Ramirez, 15 N.Y.3d 824, 909 N.Y.S.2d 1, 935 N.E.2d 791 (2010) as well, the conclusion that there had been no mode of proceedings error rested upon the circumstance that “defense counsel had notice of the contents of the note and the court's response ” (id. at 825–826, 909 N.Y.S.2d 1, 935 N.E.2d 791 [emphasis supplied]).
  8. People v. Kelly

    5 N.Y.3d 116 (N.Y. 2005)   Cited 77 times
    Noting that "[o]utside the context described by [the mode of proceedings error cases] . . . we have repeatedly held that a court's failure to adhere to a statutorily or constitutionally grounded procedural protection does not relieve the defendant of the obligation to protest"
  9. People v. Silva

    2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 8215 (N.Y. 2014)   Cited 53 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In People v Silva (24 NY3d 294 [2014]) and People v Hanson (24 NY3d 294 [2014]), the Court of Appeals held that the trial courts committed mode of proceedings errors by failing to notify counsel of jury notes before the juries in each case reached their verdicts, even though the transcripts in both cases failed to establish whether the courts were aware that the notes had been submitted.
  10. People v. Hanley

    2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 2106 (N.Y. 2013)   Cited 39 times

    2013-03-28 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Kirk HANLEY, Appellant. Dechert LLP, New York City (Matthew L. Mazur and Robert J. Jossen of counsel), and Office of the Appellate Defender (Richard M. Greenberg of counsel) for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York City (Gina Mignola and Alan Gadlin of counsel), for respondent. GRAFFEO Dechert LLP, New York City (Matthew L. Mazur and Robert J. Jossen of counsel), and Office of the Appellate Defender (Richard M.

  11. s 500.11 - Alternative procedure for selected appeals

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 500.11   Cited 494 times

    (a) On its own motion, the court may review selected appeals by an alternative procedure. Such appeals shall be determined on the intermediate appellate court record or appendix and briefs, the writings in the courts below and additional letter submissions on the merits. The clerk of the court shall notify all parties by letter when an appeal has been selected for review pursuant to this section. Appellant may request such review in its preliminary appeal statement. Respondent may request such review