People v. Kolupa

N.Y.

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Citations: 13 N.Y.3d 786, 887 N.Y.S.2d 536, 916 N.E.2d 430

Decision Date: 9/22/2009

Jurisdiction: NY

Bluebook Citation: People v. Kolupa, 13 N.Y.3d 786, 887 N.Y.S.2d 536, 916 N.E.2d 430 (2009)

More Cases: N.Y. decisions from 2009


Citation analytics

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

Highly CitedTop 5% most-cited · cited by 59 decisions
59
Citing decisions
2
Authorities cited
5
Courts citing

Citations by decade

44
15
2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

N.Y. App. Div.43
N.Y. App. Term.11
N.Y.2
N.Y. App. Term2
NY1
Most recently cited by10
  • 2026People v. Galantino N.Y. App. Div.
  • 2026People v. Falls N.Y. App. Term.
  • 2025People v. Marcantonio N.Y. App. Div.
  • 2023People v. Devitt N.Y. App. Div.
  • 2022People v. Fedyk N.Y. App. Div.
  • 2022People v. McDonnell N.Y. App. Div.
  • 2022People v. Salierno (Marissa) N.Y. App. Term.
  • 2022People v. Vasquez (Yessenia) N.Y. App. Term.
  • 2022People v. Echevarria-Acevedo (Heriberto) N.Y. App. Term.
  • 2021People v. Young 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 Shannon M. Kolupa, Appellant.

Attorneys

  • APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
  • Frank J. Nebush, Jr., Public Defender, Criminal Division, Utica {Esther Cohen Lee of counsel), for appellant.
  • Scott D. McNamara, District Attorney, Utica {Steven G. Cox of counsel), for respondent.
majority Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant failed to preserve his argument that the People introduced insufficient evidence to corroborate the child victim’s testimony. At the close of the People’s case, the trial court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss and defendant proceeded to present his own evidence. He did not thereafter renew the motion to dismiss at the close of his proof or specifically argue that there was not sufficient corroboration of the victim’s statements. As a result, this issue is not reviewable (see e.g. People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 889 [2006]; People v Payne, 3 NY3d 266, 273 [2004]; People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 61-62 [2001]). Defendant’s remaining contention is without merit.

Chat with this case using AI

Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this case, check whether it is still good law, and see every case that cites it. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.