Court Opinion

ID: 9785268
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 21:13:15.091085+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:14.004459
License: Public Domain

Smith, J. (concurring).
Today’s decision correctly applies People v Hines (97 NY2d 56, 61-62 [2001]). I have expressed my unhappiness with Hines before (People v Payne, 3 NY3d 266, 273 [2004, R.S. Smith, J., concurring]), but this case, in which the Appellate Division did not mention preservation, defendant does not argue the issue, and the Appellate Division’s decision on the merits seems clearly correct, is not the right one for further examination of the Hines rule.
Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur; Judge Smith concurs in a separate concurring opinion.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed in a memorandum.