Case law

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 ).

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

240 A.D.2d 675 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 23, 1997

Brown v. Campbell

1 Hopk. Ch. 233 · New York Court of Chancery · Aug 4, 1824

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

52 A.D.3d 430 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 26, 2008

aggravating factors were not duplicative of the factors relied upon in the risk assessment instrument and guidelines, and they supported the discretionary upward departure by the court to a level three adjudication (see People v

People v. Brown

32 Misc. 2d 846 · New York County Courts · Feb 9, 1962

(People v. Loria, 10 N Y 2d 368, 372.) The validity of an arrest depends upon the existence of probable cause to make the arrest. … (Byars v. United States, 273 U. S. 28, 29 ; Henry v. United States, 361 U. S. 98, 104 .)

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.

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 ).

Mapes v. Brown

14 Abb. N. Cas. 94 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1884

irregular ; but I see no reason for striking it out, inasmuch as the defendants who make this motion retained the same from the 14th to the 22d of March, and thereby, I think, lost their right to object thereto (Hollister v.

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])

People v. Brown

276 A.D.2d 266 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 3, 2000

inappropriate manner, they cannot be said to have conveyed the court’s opinion as to defendant’s guilt, to have minimized the importance of careful deliberations, or to have deprived defendant of a fair trial (compare, People v

People v. Brown

52 A.D.3d 1248 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 6, 2008

Brown v. Reed

10 Misc. 2d 8 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 21, 1957

(Fisher v. New Yorker Staats-Zeitung, 114 App. Div. 824 [2d Dept.].) … (Roberts v. Pratt, 174 Misc. 585 .)

McKithen v. Brown

565 F. Supp. 2d 440 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 21, 2008

McKithen v. Brown (McKithen VII), 481 F.3d 89, 93 (2d Cir.2007), cert. denied sub nom. Brown v. McKithen (McKithen VIII), — *447 U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 1218 , 170 L.Ed.2d 59 (2008). … Id. at 11 , 99 S.Ct. 2100 . 12 This holding was reaffirmed and extended to commutations in Connecticut Board of Pardons v. Dumschat. 452 U.S. at 463-64 , 101 S.Ct. 2460 .

People v. Brown

70 A.D.3d 407 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 2, 2010

People v Pearson, 67 AD3d 600 [2009] [court has authority to make immediate retraction of discharge of jury]). … Velasquez, 1 NY3d 44, 48 [2003]; People v Kinchen, 60 NY2d 772 [1983]).

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 ).

Folser v. Brown

266 A.D. 954 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 15, 1943

Brown v. Clark

3 Johns. 443 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 15, 1808

This court, therefore, has power to award a venire de novo, returnable at a circuit court, as was done in the case of Grant v. … Astle, (Doug. 722.) and as was admitted to be the rule, by Lord Mansfield, in the case of Harwood v. Goodright. (Cowper, 89, 90.) The case of Davis v.

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.