Case law

People v. Brown

57 A.D.3d 260 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 9, 2008

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our prior decision (People v Hill, 52 AD3d 380 [2008]), we conclude that the verdict as to Brown was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence … People v Jones, 38 AD3d 352 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 846 [2007]). Johnson’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim relating to this issue is likewise without merit.

Brown v. Bussey

245 A.D.2d 255 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 1, 1997

John the Baptist v Geraghty Constructor, 67 NY2d 997, 998 ; see also, Matter of Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co. v Luckie, 85 NY2d 193, 201-202). … [Presidential Towers Residence], 40 NY2d 897, 898; Matter of Prinze [Jonas], 38 NY2d 570, 577 ; Stadier v Findley, 148 AD2d 600 )” (Dazco Heating & Air Conditioning Corp. v C.B.C. Indus., 225 AD2d 578 ).

Brown v. Fischer

56 A.D.2d 1208 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 14, 2008

Brown v. Wheeler

53 A.D. 6 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 1, 1900

In Garlock v. Vandevort ( 128 N. … This view is supported by the cases of Riggs v. Cragg ( 89 N. Y. 479 ); Matter of Verplanck (91 id. 439) and Purdy v. Hayt (92 id. 446).

Flannagan v. Brown

211 A.D. 694 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 20, 1925

Brown, to inquire as to the latter’s condition. During the course of that conversation, as testified to by Mrs. Brown, “ She [Mrs. … (Warner v. New York Central R. R. Co., 44 N. Y. 465 ; Eppendorf v. Brooklyn City & Newtown R. R. Co., 69 id. 195; Zucker v. Whitridge, 205 id. 50.)

Brown v. Dunson

55 A.D.3d 602 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 7, 2008

In this matter, the mother was denied her right to have counsel assigned to her (see Family Ct Act § 262 [a] [v]). Mastro, J.E, Angiolillo, Garni and Eng, JJ., concur.

Muzio v. Brown

302 A.D.2d 505 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 18, 2003

Brown, Sagamore In Pine Hollow, Ltd., and Sagamore Auto Body, Inc., and the defendants Frank Verderber and Pine Lane Association, Inc., to dismiss the complaint, to impose a sanction on the plaintiffs, and for an award of … As a matter of law, damages are not recoverable for mental or emotional distress caused by destruction of personal property (see Probst v Cacoulidis, 295 AD2d 331, 332 [2002]).

People v. Brown

35 A.D.3d 627 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 12, 2006

Arnold, 96 NY2d 358, 362-364 [2001]; see also People v Johnson, 94 NY2d 600, 614 [2000]; People v Blyden, 55 NY2d 73, 77-78 [1982]). … Where a prospective juror offers such assurances, the trial court has discretion to deny the challenge for cause if it determines that the juror’s promise to be impartial is credible (see People v Arnold, supra at 363).

People v. Brown

276 A.D.2d 429 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 26, 2000

The testimony was sufficiently limited in scope and did not suggest that defendant was involved in a large-scale drug operation (see, People v Johnson, 264 AD2d 632, 633 , lv denied 94 NY2d 864 ; People v McAllister, 255 … AD2d 241 , lv denied 93 NY2d 876 ; People v Smith, 254 AD2d 127 , lv denied 93 NY2d 878 ).

People v. Brown

61 A.D.3d 1427 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 24, 2009

circumstances of this case, that failure alone constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel because it was “so ‘egregious and prejudicial’ as to deprive [the] defendant of his constitutional right” to a fair trial (People v … People v Pierce, 303 AD2d 966, 966-967 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 565 [2003]). Based on our resolution of this issue, we see no need to reach defendant’s remaining contention.

Eng v. Brown

196 A.D.2d 89 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 10, 1994

Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222 , 233). … Since the record does not contain substantial evidence that provides a rational basis for the Commissioner’s determination that Eng attempted to cause physical injury to Dono when he fired the shotgun (Matter of Pell v Board

People v. Brown

221 A.D.2d 270 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 28, 1995

Applegate, 176 AD2d 888, 889 , lv denied 79 NY2d 853 ; People v Grega, 72 NY2d 489, 497 ). … Thus, the trial court properly refused any charge as to accomplice liability (People v Jones, 73 NY2d 902 ; People v Tucker, 72 NY2d 849 ). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

People v. Brown

259 A.D.2d 985 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 31, 1999

879 , lv denied 87 NY2d 850 ; People v Dempsey, 177 AD2d 1018 , lv denied 79 NY2d 946 ). … In any event, any error is harmless (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237 ).

People v. Brown

12 A.D.3d 378 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 1, 2004

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. … Thus, he was not entitled to a jury trial to determine the facts of his prior felony convictions (see People v Rice, 285 AD2d 617 [2001]; see also People v Reddick, 1 AD3d 385 [2003]; People v Lebron, 293 AD2d 689 [2002])

Brown v. Wolfe

119 A.D. 777 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 8, 1907

.: 'There is a complete failure of proof that the defendant purchased the building materials in question from Brown, and there was no " evidence that he ever entered into any agreement with Brown for the erection of a barn … The admission of this evidence and the direction .of a'verdict based thereon were errors requiring a reversal (Rich v. Wright, 57 App. Div. 236 ; Southwick v. First Nat. Bank of Memphis, 84 N. Y. 420 ; Romeyn v.

People v. Brown

21 A.D.3d 1035 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 19, 2005

People v Albert, 85 NY2d 851 [1995]). … Simon, 224 AD2d 458 [1996]; People v Pollard, 150 AD2d 397 [1989]; People v Castillo, 144 AD2d 376 [1988]).

Vinicor v. Brown

158 A.D.2d 349 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 13, 1990

allegations, summary judgment was properly granted as they are not entitled to protection under the Loft Law because the loft has not been their primary residence since 1981 (Multiple Dwelling Law § 286 [6]; New York City Loft Board … Regulations [Relating to Subletting, Subdivision, & Assignment] §B [4]; see Pendias v 3 E. 69th St.

People v. Brown

190 A.D.2d 510 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 2, 1993

There was no evidence indicating that the claimed accomplice had planned, anticipated, or assisted in committing the crime (People v Jones, 73 NY2d 902 ; People v Tucker, 72 NY2d 849 ). … On the present record, we cannot conclude that defendant’s counsel was incompetent under the standards set forth in People v Baldi ( 54 NY2d 137, 147 ).

People v. Brown

248 A.D.2d 742 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 5, 1998

The People were not required to (and in fact did not) limit the jury’s consideration to any specific underlying criminal intent and had no obligation to furnish particulars in that regard (see, People v Mackey, 49 NY2d 274 … , 280-281 ; People v Jones, 227 AD2d 195, 196 , Iv denied 88 NY2d 937 ).

People v. Brown

234 A.D.2d 15 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 3, 1996

"[M]uch weight must be accorded the determination of the suppression court with its peculiar advantages of having seen and heard the witnesses” (People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 , 761), and the court was clearly warranted in … Goins, 73 NY2d 989 , with People v Brown, 67 NY2d 555 , cert denied 479 US 1093 ), and the People offered to make the witness available for further cross-examination, which the defense refused.