People v. Fleming

N.Y.

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Citations: 70 N.Y.2d 947, 524 N.Y.S.2d 670, 519 N.E.2d 616, 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 17

Decision Date: 1/19/1988

Jurisdiction: NY

Bluebook Citation: People v. Fleming, 70 N.Y.2d 947, 524 N.Y.S.2d 670, 519 N.E.2d 616, 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 17 (1988)

More Cases: N.Y. decisions from 1988

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Highly CitedTop 3% most-cited · cited by 80 decisions

Citing decisions

Authorities cited

Courts citing

Citations by decade

1980s1990s2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

N.Y. App. Div.71

2d Cir.2

N.Y.2

N.Y. App. Term.2

N.Y. Dist. Ct.1

S.D.N.Y.1

Most recently cited by10

2026People v. Bessette N.Y. App. Div.
2024West v. Coueny W.D.N.Y.
2023People v. Diaz N.Y. App. Div.
2021People v. Brown (Jemall) N.Y. App. Term.
2020People v. Sterling (Kelvin) N.Y. App. Term.
2019People v. Young N.Y. App. Div.
2018People v. Cowan N.Y. App. Div.
2017Hamilton v. Lee 2d Cir.
2014People v. Jean N.Y. App. Div.
2013People v. Shaulov N.Y. App. Div.

Cites 2 cases

People v. West
People v. Love

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alonzo Fleming, Appellant.

Attorneys

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Bertrand J. Kahn and Philip L. Weinstein for appellant.
Paul T. Gentile, District Attorney (Stanley R. Kaplan and Peter D. Coddington of counsel), for respondent.

majority

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant’s sole claim of error — that the trial court violated his right of confrontation by permitting the arresting officer to testify that he arrested defendant after a conversation with an individual who did not testify — has not been preserved for our review. Although defense counsel sought a prospective ruling on this point, the court declined to make an anticipatory ruling. When the arresting officer later testified at trial, counsel entered objections as "objection” or "leading”, but failed to advise the trial court that the present claimed error was the basis for any of his objections. The word "objection” alone was insufficient to preserve the issue for our review (see, People v Love, 57 NY2d 1023, 1025; People v West, 56 NY2d 662, 663).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.