People v. Gaines

5 Citing cases

  1. Reyes v. Greiner

    340 F. Supp. 2d 245 (E.D.N.Y. 2004)   Cited 11 times

    S.2d 143 (1st Dept. 2004) (granting new trial); People v. Van Hoesen, 761 N.Y.S.2d 404 (3d Dept. 2003) (new trial); People v. Bhupsingh, 746 N.Y.S.2d 490 (2d Dept. 2002) (reverse-Batson) (new trial);People v. Ramirez, 744 N.Y.S.2d 683 (2d Dept. 2002) (remanding case to trial court for hearing to afford prosecution the opportunity to establish a nonpretextual race-neutral explanation for its challenges); People v. Campos, 736 N.Y.S.2d 108 (2d Dept. 2002) (new trial); People v. Burroughs, 744 N.Y.S.2d 608 (4th Dept. 2002) (new trial); People v. Hymes, 722 N.Y.S.2d 759 (2d Dept. 2001) (remand); People v. Sprague, 721 N.Y.S.2d 205 (4th Dept. 2001) (reverse-Batson) (new trial); People v. Davis, 677 N.Y.S.2d 541 (1st Dept. 1998) (new trial); People v. Cardwell, 680 N.Y.S.2d 598 (2d Dept. 1998) (remand); People v. Guzman, 675 N.Y.S.2d 110 (2d Dept. 1998) (remand); People v. Blancero, 660 N.Y.S.2d 44 (2d Dept. 1997) (new trial); People v. Dalhouse, 658 N.Y.S.2d 408 (2d Dept. 1997) (new trial);People v. Gaines, 655 N.Y.S.2d 62 (2d Dept. 1997) (new trial);People v. Liang Jun Ying, 654 N.Y.S.2d 389 (2d Dept. 1997) (new trial); People v. Starks, 651 N.Y.S.2d 949 (3d Dept. 1996) (remand); People v. Negron, 648 N.Y.S.2d 910 (1st Dept. 1996) (new trial); People v. Wint, 638 N.Y.S.2d 651 (1st Dept. 1996) (remand); People v. Mackenzie, 647 N.Y.S.2d 825 (2d Dept. 1996) (remand); People v. Britt, 647 N.Y.S.2d 527 (2d Dept. 1996) (reverse-Batson) (remand); People v. Jones, 636 N.Y.S.2d 115 (2d Dept. 1996) (new trial); People v. Mack, 632 N.Y.S.2d 798 (2d Dept. 1995) (reverse-Batson) (new trial); People v. Rodriguez, 627 N.Y.S.2d 614 (1st Dept. 1995) (new trial);People v. Jackson, 623 N.Y.S.2d 881 (1st Dept. 1995) (new trial);People v. Garcia, 636 N.Y.S.2d 370 (2d Dept. 1995) (remand); People v. Richie, 635 N.Y.S.2d 263 (2d Dept. 1995) (reverse-Batson) (new trial); People v. Pagano, 616 N.Y.S.2d 366 (1st Dept. 1994) (remand); People v. Williams, 620 N.Y.S.2d 85 (2d Dept. 1994) (new trial);People v. Dixon, 615 N.Y.S.2d 904 (2d Dept. 1

  2. People v. Murray

    197 A.D.3d 46 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)   Cited 1 times

    The prosecutor's explanation is essentially an attempt to convince this Court with the preposterous proposition that only jurors with "higher level jobs" can effectively consider all the evidence in this case. While a juror's employment status might be an appropriate race-neutral reason for exclusion, it should be related to the facts of the case (see e.g.People v. Jackson , 213 A.D.2d 335, 623 N.Y.S.2d 881 [1st Dept 1995], appeal dismissed 86 N.Y.2d 860, 635 N.Y.S.2d 939, 659 N.E.2d 761 [1995] ; People v. Gaines , 237 A.D.2d 373, 655 N.Y.S.2d 62 [2d Dept. 1997], lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 858, 661 N.Y.S.2d 184, 683 N.E.2d 1058 [1997] ; People v. Williams , 199 A.D.2d 445, 605 N.Y.S.2d 383 [2d Dept. 1993], lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 912, 614 N.Y.S.2d 394, 637 N.E.2d 285 [1994] ; People v. Dabbs , 192 A.D.2d 932, 596 N.Y.S.2d 893 [3d Dept. 1992], lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 707, 601 N.Y.S.2d 604, 619 N.E.2d 682 [1993] ; People v. Duncan, 177 A.D.2d at 194, 582 N.Y.S.2d 847 ). However, if the employment of the potential juror has no connection with the specific facts of the case then an exclusion of such a juror could constitute discrimination ( People v. Campos , 290 A.D.2d 456, 736 N.Y.S.2d 108 [2d Dept. 2002], lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 649, 745 N.Y.S.2d 507, 772 N.E.2d 610 [2002] ; People v. Smith , 266 A.D.2d 570, 699 N.Y.S.2d 104 [2d Dept. 1999] ; People v. Jackson , 213 A.D.2d at 336, 623 N.Y.S.2d 881 ; People v. Bennett , 206 A.D.2d 382, 614 N.Y.S.2d 430 [2d Dept. 1994], lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 859, 624 N.Y.S.2d 378, 648 N.E.2d 798 [1995] ).

  3. People v. Murray

    No. 2021-04108 (N.Y. App. Div. Jun. 29, 2021)

    The prosecutor's explanation is essentially an attempt to convince this Court with the preposterous proposition that only jurors with "higher level jobs" can effectively consider all the evidence in this case. While a juror's employment status might be an appropriate race-neutral reason for exclusion, it should be related to the facts of the case (see e.g. People v Jackson, 213 A.D.2d 335 [1st Dept 1995, appeal dismissed 86 N.Y.2d 860 [1995]; People v Gaines, 237 A.D.2d 373 [2d Dept 1997 ], lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 858 [1997]; People v Williams, 199 A.D.2d 445 [2d Dept 1993, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 912 [1994]; People v Dabbs, 192 A.D.2d 932 [3d Dept 1992], lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 707 [1993]; People v Duncan, 177 A.D.2d at 194). However, if the employment of the potential juror has no connection with the specific facts of the case then an exclusion of such a juror could constitute discrimination (People v Campos, 290 A.D.2d 456 [2d Dept 2002], lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 649 [2002]; People v Smith, 266 A.D.2d 570 [2d Dept 1999]; People v Jackson, 213 A.D.2d at 336; People v Bennett, 206 A.D.2d 382 [2d Dept 1994], lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 859 [1995]).

  4. Piccirillo v. Scarlino Fuel Oil Co., Inc.

    265 A.D.2d 470 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)   Cited 2 times

    ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the defendants' motion for leave to serve a late answer and denying the plaintiff's cross motion (see, Lichtman v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 237 A.D.2d 373; Kranis, P.C. v. European Am. Bank, 208 A.D.2d 904). RITTER, J.P., KRAUSMAN, FLORIO, and FEUERSTEIN, JJ., concur.

  5. People v. Blancero

    240 A.D.2d 754 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)   Cited 4 times

    counsel pointed out in response, the prosecutor did not challenge other jurors with similar relationships to the police department ( see, People v Allen, 86 N.Y.2d 101, 110, supra; People v. Bolling, 79 N.Y.2d 317, 324; People v. Richie, supra). Moreover, the prosecutor challenged two other jurors of Italian descent because he "did not like" the answers they gave when he asked them whether they would be willing to give the "complainant a shot" although he had "certain things going against him". While admitting that one of these jurors "didn't say no, she wouldn't give him a shot", the prosecutor nevertheless stated that the juror's answer still "wasn't the answer I would have liked to hear" ( People v. McMichael, supra; see also, People v. Liang Jun Ying, 236 A.D.2d 630). Upon our review of the prosecutor's statements, we find that the defendant carried his burden of demonstrating purposeful discrimination ( see, People v. Liang Jun Ying, supra; People v. Jones, 223 A.D.2d 559; cf., People v. Gaines, 237 A.D.2d 373). The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.