People v. Ingram
N.Y.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2026People v. Rosario (Benjamin) N.Y. App. Term.
- 2025People v. Tevelev (Mikhail) N.Y. App. Term.
- 2025People v. Howell N.Y. App. Div.
- 2024People v. Taylor N.Y. App. Div.
- 2024People v. Torres N.Y. App. Div.
- 2024People v. Thomas NY
- 2023People v. Joyette N.Y. App. Div.
- 2022People v. Wright N.Y. App. Div.
- 2022People v. Marcial N.Y. App. Div.
- 2021People v. Butler N.Y. App. Div.
Cites 2 cases
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tecoy Ingram, Appellant.
Attorneys
- APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
- Mitchell Goris Stokes & O’Sullivan, LLP, Cazenovia (Stewart F. Hancock, Jr., of counsel), and Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (Philip Rothschild and Piotr Banasiak of counsel), for appellant.
- William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (James P. Maxwell and Victoria M. White of counsel), for respondent.
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, and the matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum.
CPL 470.15 (1) precludes the Appellate Division from reviewing an issue that was either decided in an appellant’s favor or was not decided by the trial court (see People v Concepcion, 17 NY3d 192 [2011]; People v LaFontaine, 92 NY2d 470 [1998]). In an appeal from an Appellate Division affirmance, CPL 470.35 (1) grants us no broader review power than that possessed by the Appellate Division. Here, without addressing the validity of Supreme Court’s rationale, the Appellate Division resolved defendant’s suppression application on a theory not reached by the suppression court.