Case law

People v. Brown

138 A.D.2d 933 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 4, 1988

Defendant’s reliance on People v Olsen ( 34 NY2d 349 ) is misplaced, because in that case the court permitted the prosecutor to reopen his case after the jury had begun to deliberate. … Moreover, in light of the overwhelming proof of guilt in this case, any error in the admission of this testimony can be deemed harmless (People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 242 ).

People v. Brown

220 A.D.2d 444 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 31, 1995

We conclude that the trial court properly marshaled the evidence necessary to explain its charge on identification (see, CPL 300.10 [2]; People v Bell, 38 NY2d 116 ).

Eagle Insurance v. Brown

309 A.D.2d 749 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 6, 2003

Co. v Brown, 300 AD2d 660 [2002]; Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Snell, 286 AD2d 682 [2001]; State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v Genao, 210 AD2d 340 [1994]; Matter of United States Fire Ins. … Co. v Williams, 166 AD2d 538 [1990]). Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Brown v. Mader

120 A.D. 515 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 21, 1907

People v. Brown

102 A.D.2d 894 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 25, 1984

Goldman v Denno, 9 NY2d 138, 140 ; People ex rel. … Gold v Jackson, 5 NY2d 243 )” (People v Gonzalez, 61 NY2d 586, 590-591 ), indicates that the acts charged would clearly constitute a felony in this State (Penal Law, §§ 155.30, 155.40, 160.05). f We have reviewed the other

Swartz v. Brown

135 A.D. 913 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 15, 1909

Bank v. May, 29 Hun, 404 ; Boyd, v. … (Robinson v. Striker, 47 Hun, 546 .)

People v. Brown

221 A.D.2d 353 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 6, 1995

This amendment was "an *354 impermissible substantive change in the indictment which cannot stand” (People v Chicas, 204 AD2d 476, 477 ; see also, People v Perez, 83 NY2d 269 , modfg 191 AD2d 285 ).

People v. Brown

270 A.D.2d 495 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 27, 2000

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of attempted burglary in the second degree … (see, Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.25 [2]) beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Mitteager, 44 NY2d 927 ; People v Van Etten, 162 AD2d 976 ; People v Crawford, 159 AD2d 583 ).

People v. Brown

2024 NY Slip Op 00566 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 2, 2024

People v Brown ( 2024 NY Slip Op 00566 ) People v Brown 2024 NY Slip Op 00566 Decided on February 2, 2024 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § … BROWN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. JULIE CIANCA, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JAMES ECKERT OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (MERIDETH H. SMITH OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

People v. Brown

20 A.D.2d 756 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 27, 1964

well settled that the right of appeal in criminal cases is purely statutory, not a matter of constitutional right, and that juris *757 diction cannot be assumed unless there is statutory authority for its exercise (People v.

People v. Brown

193 A.D.2d 496 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 18, 1993

Riley snatched a gold chain from McFarland’s neck and when McFarland attempted to pursue, defendant Brown displayed a gun causing him to stop. Brown and Riley then returned to the Chevrolet which fled the scene. … Moreover, the prosecution’s summation exacerbated the error by referring to this highly prejudical postarrest conduct of defendant (see, People v Manning, 92 AD2d 695 ).

Brown v. Schulman

245 A.D.2d 561 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 29, 1997

351, 355 ; Matter of Holtzman v Goldman, 71 NY2d 564, 569 ; Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 353 ). … Angiolillo, supra, at 355-356; Matter of Holtzman v Goldman, supra, at 569; Matter of Rush v Mordue, supra, at 353).

People v. Brown

33 A.D.2d 617 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 28, 1969

Such an act if committed in New York would have constituted burglary in the third degree, a felony (former Penal Law, § 404; see People v. Olah, 300 N. Y. 96 ). … Knapp v. Jackson, 6 A D 2d 151, mot. for lv. to app. den. 5 N Y 2d 707) and this, of course, is so irrespective of the status of the companion federal conviction. Nor can we agree that a hearing is mandated.

Blancero v. Brown

216 A.D.2d 384 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 12, 1995

Brown has exceeded his order of appointment. Adjudged that the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements. … The respondent Richard A. *385 Brown (hereinafter the respondent) was subsequently appointed a Special District Attorney pursuant to County Law § 701.

People v. Brown

236 A.D.2d 254 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 11, 1997

Acevedo v. Brown

195 A.D.2d 164 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 27, 1994

Moreover, the Board found that the Con Edison records were sent to the Police Department in January 1983 and that there was no evidence that they were reviewed by the Police Department psychiatrists prior to petitioner’s … to seek further review of the Civil Service Commission’s 1987 determination, the respondents should not now be heard to complain inasmuch as their reinstatement of petitioner had a rational basis (see, Matter of Garayua v

People v. Brown

60 A.D.2d 540 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 15, 1977

A defendant in a criminal trial may be granted permission to defend himself provided that, inter alia, the trial court is satisfied that he has intelligently waived his right to counsel (People v McIntyre, 36 NY2d 10, 17

Brown v. Harmon

29 A.D. 31 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 1, 1898

In Bagley v. Bowe ( 105 N. … The doctrine laid down in Tilson v. Terwilliger (supra) was quoted and followed in Wallace v. Nodine ( 10 N. Y. Supp. 919 ), and in Woodworth v. Hodgson (9 id. 751).

Ronan v. Brown

35 A.D.2d 959 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 7, 1970

Brown v. Tofany

33 A.D.2d 984 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 15, 1970

(Duchin v. Peterson, 12 A D 2d 622.) It does not lie unless there is a lack of jurisdiction or an- officer is acting or threatening to act in excess of jurisdiction (Matter of Schick v. Kane, 26 A D 2d 386, 388). … (Matter of Slimack v. Tofany, 32 A D 2d 873.) Having jurisdiction of the hearing, he had' power to adjourn it (Matter of Hogg v. Parker, 20 A D 2d 611, affd. 14 N Y 2d 728; Matter of Woolever v. Beckley, 25 A D 2d 921).