18 Cited authorities

People v. Jennings
69 N.Y.2d 103 (N.Y. 1986) Cited 763 times
In Jennings, the president of the insured (Sentry) received a check from Sentry's insurer to cover payments owed to the Sentry's clients as a result of losses incurred when the Sentry's warehouse was robbed.
Batts v. Tow-Motor Forklift Co.
66 F.3d 743 (5th Cir. 1995) Cited 230 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that even a change in decisional law was not an extraordinary circumstance
People v. Jensen
86 N.Y.2d 248 (N.Y. 1995) Cited 208 times
Argued June 7, 1995 Decided July 5, 1995 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, William C. Barrett, J. Michael D. Pinnisi, Ithaca, for appellant. George M. Dentes, District Attorney of Tompkins County, Ithaca (Gary U. Surdell of counsel), for respondent. CIPARICK, J. The question presented on this appeal is whether the Grand Jury evidence is legally sufficient to support the indictment. We agree with the Appellate Division that it is. On November
People v. Becoats
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 7306 (N.Y. 2011) Cited 95 times 2 Legal Analyses
In People v. Becoats, 17 N.Y.3d 643, 934 N.Y.S.2d 737, 958 N.E.2d 865 (2011), defendant contended that the indictment was facially duplicitous.
Matter of Brandon
55 N.Y.2d 206 (N.Y. 1982) Cited 104 times
Noting the failure of some courts to distinguish between the weak similarity requirement of the intent exception from the strong similarity requirement of the common plan exception
People v. Small
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 1066 (N.Y. 2009) Cited 36 times
In People v Small (12 NY3d 732 [2009]), a case in which the defendant did not present any defense witnesses, this Court held that, in response to the defendant's attempt to establish an agency defense during the People's case, the lower court "did not abuse its discretion in permitting the People to present Molineux evidence" on the issue of intent (id. at 733).
People v. Argentieri
66 A.D.3d 558 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009) Cited 16 times
Nos. 1248, 1249. October 22, 2009. Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered July 19, 2007, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 3 ½ to 7 years, unanimously affirmed. Purported appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about April 1, 2008, which denied defendant's CPL 440.10 motion
People v. Frumusa
134 A.D.3d 1503 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015) Cited 4 times
1249 KA 13-01609. 12-31-2015 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Lawrence P. FRUMUSA, Also Known as John Doe, Defendant–Appellant. Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Drew R. Dubrin of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Robert J. Shoemaker of Counsel), for Respondent. Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Drew R. Dubrin of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Robert J. Shoemaker
People v. Williams
41 A.D.3d 1252 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007) Cited 10 times
No. KA 06-00132. June 8, 2007. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Penny M. Wolfgang, J.), rendered November 29, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of robbery in the second degree and unlawful imprisonment in the second degree. THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (NICHOLAS T. TEXIDO OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. DAVID WILLIAMS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE. FRANK J. CLARK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (RAYMOND C. HERMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR
Melton v. Deere Co.
887 F.2d 1241 (5th Cir. 1989) Cited 25 times
Affirming a judgment n.o.v. and stating that "the risk that an auger may be engaged whenever the engine is running is a matter of common sense with which the a reasonable user of the combine must be charged"

The People, Respondent,v.Lawrence P. Frumusa,, Appellant.

18 Cited authorities

In Jennings, the president of the insured (Sentry) received a check from Sentry's insurer to cover payments owed to the Sentry's clients as a result of losses incurred when the Sentry's warehouse was robbed.

Holding that even a change in decisional law was not an extraordinary circumstance

In People v. Becoats, 17 N.Y.3d 643, 934 N.Y.S.2d 737, 958 N.E.2d 865 (2011), defendant contended that the indictment was facially duplicitous.

Noting the failure of some courts to distinguish between the weak similarity requirement of the intent exception from the strong similarity requirement of the common plan exception

Affirming a judgment n.o.v. and stating that "the risk that an auger may be engaged whenever the engine is running is a matter of common sense with which the a reasonable user of the combine must be charged"