18 Cited authorities

  1. Estelle v. Gamble

    429 U.S. 97 (1976)   Cited 41,821 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that deliberate indifference to a convicted prisoner's serious medical needs constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of Eighth Amendment
  2. Rovello v. Orofino Realty Co.

    40 N.Y.2d 633 (N.Y. 1976)   Cited 1,941 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Ruling that on motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211, "court may freely consider affidavits submitted by the plaintiff to remedy any defects in the complaint"
  3. People v. Louree

    8 N.Y.3d 541 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 288 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Reversing the Appellate Division for affirming the trial court's decision denying defendant's motion to withdraw his plea despite the failure to mention PRS during the allocution
  4. People v. Sides

    75 N.Y.2d 822 (N.Y. 1990)   Cited 396 times
    Requiring a new trial where indigent defendant requested a change of counsel and where record indicated a possible irreconcilable conflict between the defendant and his assigned attorney
  5. People v. Porto

    16 N.Y.3d 93 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 204 times

    Nos. 219, 220. Argued November 16, 2010. Decided December 21, 2010. APPEAL, in the first above-entitled action, by permission of an Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, entered October 6, 2009. The Appellate Division affirmed a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Robert M. Stolz, J.), which had convicted defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree. APPEAL, in the second

  6. People v. Frederick

    45 N.Y.2d 520 (N.Y. 1978)   Cited 521 times
    In People v. Frederick, 45 N.Y.2d 520, 410 N.Y.S.2d 555, 382 N.E.2d 1332 (1978), the trial court informed the defendant at the plea allocution that no promises were being made concerning the sentence to be imposed.
  7. People v. Tinsley

    35 N.Y.2d 926 (N.Y. 1974)   Cited 408 times
    In People v Tinsley (35 N.Y.2d 926, 927), it was held that the nature and extent of the fact-finding procedures prerequisite to the disposition of an application to withdraw a plea of guilty previously entered rest largely in the discretion of the Judge to whom the application is made.
  8. Hurrell-Harring v. State

    2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 3798 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 135 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that allegations that "counsel was simply not provided at critical stages of the proceedings . . . state[d] a claim, not for ineffective assistance under Strickland, but for basic denial of the right to counsel under Gideon"
  9. People v. Kinchen

    60 N.Y.2d 772 (N.Y. 1983)   Cited 250 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Kinchen, the Court of Appeals had held that a claim could not be properly considered where there was no proof in the record with regard to the defendant's allegations.
  10. People v. Konstantinides

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 9311 (N.Y. 2009)   Cited 58 times
    In Konstantinides, a witness specifically claimed that a defense lawyer asked her to lie (14 N.Y.3d at 6, 896 N.Y.S.2d 284, 923 N.E.2d 567); in Fulton, a witness had told prosecutors “that he had once imported heroin for Pulton's trial counsel” (5 F.3d at 606).
  11. Section 470.35 - Determination by court of appeals of appeals from orders of intermediate appellate courts; scope of review

    N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 470.35   Cited 85 times

    1. Upon an appeal to the court of appeals from an order of an intermediate appellate court affirming a judgment, sentence or order of a criminal court, the court of appeals may consider and determine not only questions of law which were raised or considered upon the appeal to the intermediate appellate court, but also any question of law involving alleged error or defect in the criminal court proceedings resulting in the original criminal court judgment, sentence or order, regardless of whether such

  12. Section 1200.0 - Terminology

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 1200.0   Cited 1,682 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Allowing a lawyer to reveal confidential information “to the extent that the lawyer reasonably believes necessary ... to prevent the client from committing a crime”