15 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Baldi

    54 N.Y.2d 137 (N.Y. 1981)   Cited 5,476 times   6 Legal Analyses
    In Baldi, the New York State Court of Appeals expressly applied the right to effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the federal Constitution. 54 N.Y.2d at 146.
  2. People v. Berroa

    99 N.Y.2d 134 (N.Y. 2002)   Cited 109 times
    In Berroa, defense counsel's out-of-court conversations with defense witnesses created the potential that she would become a witness against her client when those witnesses later gave alibi testimony contradicting what they had previously told her.
  3. People v. Paperno

    54 N.Y.2d 294 (N.Y. 1981)   Cited 162 times
    In Paperno, defendant had moved to recuse the prosecutor just prior to trial, on the basis that he intended to call the prosecutor as a witness, and on the additional basis that the prosecutor would be in a position to argue his own credibility before the jury.
  4. People v. Brown

    98 N.Y.2d 226 (N.Y. 2002)   Cited 62 times
    In People v. Burgos-Santos (98 NY2d 226, 235), we held that the People could not use an alibi notice to cross-examine the defendant when the defense had withdrawn the notice before trial.
  5. People v. Aguilera

    82 N.Y.2d 23 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 73 times
    Recognizing that collateral estoppel principles had hardly been applied in criminal cases
  6. People v. Goodman

    69 N.Y.2d 32 (N.Y. 1986)   Cited 76 times
    In People v Goodman (69 N.Y.2d 32, 38), the Court of Appeals noted: "Before collateral estoppel may be applied in a subsequent criminal case, there must be an identity of parties * * * and issues * * * and a prior proceeding resulting in a final and valid judgment * * * in which the party opposing the estoppel had a `full and fair opportunity' to litigate [citations omitted]".
  7. People v. Acevedo

    69 N.Y.2d 478 (N.Y. 1987)   Cited 66 times
    Defining an ultimate fact as a fact "essential to conviction in the second trial"
  8. People v. Lo Cicero

    200 N.E.2d 622 (N.Y. 1964)   Cited 80 times
    Interpreting a statute using the phrase "act or omission" and applying "same offense" analysis
  9. People v. Ortiz

    69 A.D.3d 490 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)   Cited 10 times

    January 21, 2010. Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (David Stadtmauer, J.), rendered December 12, 2007, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to a term of 20 years to life, unanimously reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and the matter remanded for a new trial. Before: Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Sweeny, Catterson and Abdus-Salaam, JJ. On cross-examination of

  10. People v. Rivera

    45 N.Y.2d 989 (N.Y. 1978)   Cited 28 times

    Argued October 20, 1978 Decided November 28, 1978 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, MAX BLOOM, J. Steven G. Eckhaus, Milton M. Rosenberg and Arthur M. Unterman for appellant. Mario Merola, District Attorney (Edward G. Spell and Steven R. Kartagener of counsel), for respondent. Order affirmed on the opinion by Mr. Justice SAMUEL J. SILVERMAN at the Appellate Division ( 58 A.D.2d 147), except to note that the averments in the attorney's affidavit

  11. Section 470.15 - Determination of appeals by intermediate appellate courts; scope of review

    N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 470.15   Cited 14,535 times
    Providing for interests of justice review of unpreserved claims
  12. Section 470.20 - Determination of appeals by intermediate appellate courts; corrective action upon reversal or modification

    N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 470.20   Cited 412 times

    Upon reversing or modifying a judgment, sentence or order of a criminal court, an intermediate appellate court must take or direct such corrective action as is necessary and appropriate both to rectify any injustice to the appellant resulting from the error or defect which is the subject of the reversal or modification and to protect the rights of the respondent. The particular corrective action to be taken or directed is governed in part by the following rules: 1. Upon a reversal of a judgment after

  13. Section 470.40 - Determination by court of appeals of appeals from intermediate appellate courts; corrective action upon reversal or modification

    N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 470.40   Cited 97 times

    1. Upon reversing or modifying an order of an intermediate appellate court affirming a criminal court judgment, sentence or order, the court of appeals must take or direct such corrective action as the intermediate appellate court would, pursuant to section 470.20, have been required or authorized to take or direct had it reversed or modified the criminal court judgment, sentence or order upon the same ground or grounds. 2. Upon reversing an order of an intermediate appellate court reversing or modifying