Goodwin v. Duncan

3 Citing cases

  1. Stapleton v. Graham

    09-CV-0382 (ENV) (LB) (E.D.N.Y. May. 6, 2011)   Cited 4 times

    As an initial matter, "federal courts have approved New York's procedure for litigating Fourth Amendment claims, embodied in N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 710.10 et seq., . . . as being facially adequate." Capellan, 975 F.2d at 70 n. 1 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see Brewster v. New York, 08-CV-4480, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4660, at *31 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2010); Goodwin v. Duncan, 03-CV-0031, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102964, at *15 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2009). So, Stapleton fails on the first prong. Nor does he fare better on the next.

  2. Ortiz v. Ercole

    07-CV-4667-ENV (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2010)   1 Legal Analyses

    As an initial matter, petitioner fails to satisfy the first prong because "federal courts have approved New York's procedure for litigating Fourth Amendment claims, embodied in N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 710.10 et seq. . . . as being facially adequate." Capellan, 975 F.2d at 70 n. 1 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see Brewster v. New York, 08-CV-4480, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4660, at *31 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2010); Goodwin v. Duncan, 03-CV-0031, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102964, at *15 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2009). Nor can petitioner demonstrate an "unconscionable breakdown", such as "the hearing judge fail[ing] to make a reasoned inquiry," Angeles v. Greiner, 267 F. Supp. 2d 410, 417 (E.D.N.Y. 2003), "yield[ing] to mob intimidation of the jury" or "not provid[ing] rational conditions for inquiry into federal-law . . . questions."

  3. Crosby v. New York State

    06-CV-1570-ENV (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2010)   1 Legal Analyses

    As an initial matter, petitioner fails to satisfy the first prong because "federal courts have approved New York's procedure for litigating Fourth Amendment claims, embodied in N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 710.10 et seq. . . . as being facially adequate." Capellan, 975 F.2d at 70 n. 1 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see Brewster v. New York, 08-CV-4480, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4660, at *31 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2010); Goodwin v. Duncan, 03-CV-0031, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102964, at *15 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2009). Nor can petitioner demonstrate an "unconscionable breakdown", such as "the hearing judge fail[ing] to make a reasoned inquiry", Angeles v. Greiner, 267 F. Supp. 2d 410, 417 (E.D.N.Y. 2003), "yield[ing] to mob intimidation of the jury" or "not provid[ing] rational conditions for inquiry into federal-law . . . questions."Capellan, 975 F.2d at 70.