People v. Winslow

5 Citing cases

  1. Winslow v. Portuondo

    599 F. Supp. 2d 337 (E.D.N.Y. 2009)   Cited 4 times

    On direct appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed that conviction but modified the judgment by providing that that the terms of imprisonment run concurrently. People v. Winslow, 237 A.D.2d 638, 655 N.Y.S.2d 1018 (N.Y.App. Div.2d Dep't 1997). On August 9, 1999, petitioner filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus in which he advanced the following claims:

  2. People v. Winslow

    52 A.D.3d 851 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

    June 24, 2008. Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated March 31, 1997 ( People v Winslow, 237 AD2d 638), modifying a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered May 25, 1994. Donald Winslow, Fallsburg, N.Y., appellant pro se.

  3. People v. Larkin

    260 A.D.2d 403 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)   Cited 6 times

    The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). The defendant's other contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit (see, People v. Winslow, 237 A.D.2d 638, 639). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.

  4. Bd. of Managers of Cent. Park Place Condo. v. Potoschnig

    2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 32314 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012)

    Lien Law § 17's requirement for the verification is much stricter than what RPL § 339-aa requires. In a mechanic's lien, the person making the verification must attest to the truthfulness of the statement in the lien (In re James Passero & Sons, 237 AD2d 638 [4th Dept 1933]). There is no such requirement in RPL § 339-aa.

  5. People v. Nunez

    2004 N.Y. Slip Op. 50157 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2004)

    In most of the cases cited by the prosecutor, the defendant's attorney was given adequate notice of the investigatory lineup and a reasonable opportunity to attend but he declined to do so. Under those circumstances, unlike the present circumstances, the police were entitled to conduct the lineup without the presence of counsel (People v. Toro, 300 AD2d 86, lv denied 100 NY2d 543; People v. Rivera, 294 AD2d 519, lv denied 98 NY2d 771; People v. Jones, 275 AD2d 686, lv denied 96 NY2d 760; People v. Moore, 255 AD2d 340, lv denied 93 NY2d 876; People v. Sime, 254 AD2d 183, lv denied 92 NY2d 1038; People v. Hildago, 240 AD2d 170, lv denied 90 NY2d 1012; People v. Winslow, 237 AD2d 638, lv denied 89 NY2d 1103; People v. Petillo, 137 AD2d 843, lv denied 1031). On the contrary, in this case the police did not make any calls to the defense attorney before proceeding with the lineup in counsel's absence ( compare People v. Irick, 243 AD2d 652, lv denied 91 NY2d 926; People v. DeJesus, 247 AD2d 311, lv denied 92 NY2d 850).