People v. Hines
97 N.Y.2d 56 (N.Y. 2001) Cited 710 times 4 Legal AnalysesHolding that in a post-verdict CPL § 330.30 motion, "an insufficiency argument may not be addressed unless it has been properly reserved for review during the trial"
People v. Sabella
35 N.Y.2d 158 (N.Y. 1974) Cited 80 timesIn People v. Sabella (35 N.Y.2d 158, 168), cited by the majority, the court was concerned with the statutory requirement of corroborative proof in the prosecution of a perjury indictment.
People v. Harden
6 A.D.3d 181 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004) Cited 18 times3294. Decided April 1, 2004. Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee White, J. on speedy trial motion; Harold Beeler, J. at jury trial and sentence), rendered April 25, 2001, convicting defendant of robbery in the first degree (two counts) and robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 20 years to life, unanimously affirmed. Mary C. Farrington, for Respondent. Michael E. Lipson, for Defendant-Appellant. Before: Mazzarelli
People v. Kirkpatrick
32 N.Y.2d 17 (N.Y. 1973) Cited 62 timesIn Kirkpatrick, as was the case here, the trial court's "fail [ure]" (People v. Kirkpatrick, 32 NY2d at 21) to grant a midtrial dismissal motion resulted from a reservation of decision (see id.).
People v. Thompson
90 N.Y.2d 615 (N.Y. 1997) Cited 22 timesArgued September 18, 1997 Decided October 23, 1997 APPEAL, by permission of an Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, entered August 5, 1996, which affirmed a judgment of the Supreme Court (John J. Clabby, J., and Steven W. Fisher, J., at trial; Steven W. Fisher, J., at sentence; see, 158 Misc.2d 397), rendered in Queens County upon a verdict convicting defendant of kidnapping in the first degree, rape
State v. General Electric Company
215 A.D.2d 928 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995) Cited 16 timesIn State of New York v General Elec. Co. (215 AD2d 928 [3d Dept 1995]), the Third Department remitted for a new hearing on a discovery motion decided by a successor judge on papers submitted after oral argument to his predecessor, who retired before deciding the motion.
Three Star Offset Printing, Inc. v. Daniels
58 A.D.2d 862 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977) Cited 2 timesJuly 18, 1977 In an action for specific performance of an option to purchase a building pursuant to a provision contained in a lease thereof, the parties cross-appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated January 28, 1977, which denied their respective motions for summary judgment. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The issue here turns on the interpretation of the language of a paragraph in the lease between the plaintiff, the lessee, and the defendant's predecessor
Evans v. State
29 A.D.2d 611 (N.Y. App. Div. 1967) Cited 3 timesIn Evans v State of New York (29 AD2d 611 [3d Dept 1967]), a judgment was entered in the Court of Claims following trial in an appropriation case.
Clover-East Associates v. Bachler
23 A.D.2d 620 (N.Y. App. Div. 1965) Cited 5 timesFebruary 18, 1965 Appeal from the Monroe Trial Term. Present — Williams, P.J., Goldman, Henry, Noonan and Del Vecchio, JJ. Order unanimously reversed in accordance with the Memorandum, without costs of this appeal to any party. Memorandum: It is conceded that oral argument of the motion was had before one Justice of the Supreme Court and thereafter without consultation with the parties or their attorneys and without stipulation the papers were sent to another Justice who without any argument decided
Smith v. State of New York
108 N.E. 214 (N.Y. 1915) Cited 20 timesIn Smith v. State of New York (214 N.Y. 140) it was assumed that this provision embraced not only oral argument but a trial.