People v. Adams

3 Citing cases

  1. Adams v. Greiner

    02 Civ. 6328 (GEL) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2004)   Cited 10 times

    Adams's claims have been extensively litigated, and repeatedly rejected, in the state courts, through both direct appeal and post-trial motions. See, e.g., People v. Adams, 688 N.Y.S.2d 1 (1st Dep't 1999); People v. Adams, No. 8439/94 (Bronx Cty. Sup. Ct., Sept. 17, 2003) (Bamberger, J.); People v. Adams, No. 8439/94 (Bronx Cty. Sup. Ct., Sept. 27, 2000) (Bamberger, J.). After filing this habeas petition and receiving the state's opposition questioning whether one part of one claim had been properly exhausted, Adams requested that the petition be held in abeyance to permit him to present that argument to the state courts.

  2. People v. Richardson

    174 A.D.3d 1535 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)   Cited 3 times

    We reject that contention. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to defendant, as we must (seePeople v. Reynoso, 73 N.Y.2d 816, 818, 537 N.Y.S.2d 113, 534 N.E.2d 30 [1988] ), we conclude that there is no reasonable view of the evidence from which the jury could have found that defendant reasonably believed that the victim, a 59–year–old unarmed man, presented a risk of imminent harm to defendant's mother, who, at the time of the assault, was inside her residence, several blocks away from the scene of the assault (seePeople v. Adams, 259 A.D.2d 299, 299, 688 N.Y.S.2d 1 [1st Dept. 1999], lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 922, 693 N.Y.S.2d 505, 715 N.E.2d 508 [1999] ; cf.People v. Rivera, 138 A.D.2d 169, 174, 530 N.Y.S.2d 802 [1st Dept. 1988], lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 923, 532 N.Y.S.2d 857, 529 N.E.2d 188 [1988], amended on other grounds 143 A.D.2d 601 [1st Dept. 1988] ; People v. Emick, 103 A.D.2d 643, 656, 481 N.Y.S.2d 552 [4th Dept. 1984] ). Although the victim had struck defendant's mother earlier that day, causing minor injuries, and then had allegedly called her on the telephone and threatened to kill her, there was no evidence that any " ‘threatened harm [to defendant's mother was] imminent ’ " ( People v. Jones, 142 A.D.3d 1383, 1384, 38 N.Y.S.3d 357 [4th Dept. 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 1073, 47 N.Y.S.3d 231, 69 N.E.3d 1027 [2016] ), and "any conduct by the victim that might have been a basis for a justification defense [related to defendant's mother] had abated by the time defendant committed the assault" ( People v. Sparks, 132 A.D.3d 513, 514, 17 N.Y.S.3d 42

  3. People v. Richardson

    2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 5941 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

    We reject that contention. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to defendant, as we must (see People v Reynoso, 73 NY2d 816, 818 [1988]), we conclude that there is no reasonable view of the evidence from which the jury could have found that defendant reasonably believed that the victim, a 59-year-old unarmed man, presented a risk of imminent harm to defendant's mother, who, at the time of the assault, was inside her residence, several blocks away from the scene of the assault (see People v Adams, 259 AD2d 299, 299 [1st Dept 1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 922 [1999]; cf. People v Rivera, 138 AD2d 169, 174 [1st Dept 1988], lv denied 72 NY2d 923 [1988], amended on other grounds 143 AD2d 601 [1st Dept 1988]; People v Emick, 103 AD2d 643, 656 [4th Dept 1984]). Although the victim had struck defendant's mother earlier that day, causing minor injuries, and then had allegedly called her on the telephone and threatened to kill her, there was no evidence that any " threatened harm [to defendant's mother was] imminent' " (People v Jones, 142 AD3d 1383, 1384 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1073 [2016]), and "any conduct by the victim that might have been a basis for a justification defense [related to defendant's mother] had abated by the time defendant committed the assault" (People v Sparks, 132 AD3d 513, 514 [1st Dept 2015], affd 29 NY3d 932 [2017]).