People v. Dominique
Cases that cite this one
40 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- State v. Hai Kim Nguyen (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2011)
- People v. Velasquez (N.Y. 2003)
- People v. Torres (New York Supreme Court 1998)
- People v. Riddick (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- Coads v. Nassau County (New York Supreme Court, Nassau County 2024)
- People v. Ramos (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- People v. Ramos (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- Sims v. Artus (District Court, E.D. New York 2019)
- People v. Basile (Christopher) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- People v. Brooks (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Rankin-Fulcher v. Duane Morris, LLP (Civil Court of the City of New York 2015)
- People v. Villegas (New York Supreme Court 2014)
- B., ANNA, MTR. OF (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- In re Anna B. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- In re Anna B. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- People v. Woodard (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- In re the Accounting of the Public Administrator (New York Surrogate's Court 2010)
- People v. Travis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- People v. Thomas (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- People v. Coston (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- People v. Durant (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Bottom v. New York State Board of Parole (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- People v. Gant (New York County Courts 2005)
- People v. Konieczny (N.Y. 2004)
- People v. Aarons (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
On appeal, defendant contends that, even if the written search warrant application in this case was sufficient under CPL 690.35, it was rendered insufficient if the issuing court took oral testimony and failed to record that testimony as required by CPL 690.40 (1).
In the absence of any specific proof, the law presumes that the statutory requirements were satisfied. Under this "presumption of regularity” the law further presumes that no official or person acting under an oath of office will do anything contrary to his official duty, or omit anything which his official duty requires to be done. Substantial evidence is necessary to overcome that presumption. There is no such substantial evidence in this case.
We do not reach the argument raised by the People, that the filing of witnesses’ testimonial affidavits can constitute "substantial compliance” with the recordation requirement of *882 CPL 690.40 (1) under our holding in People v Taylor (73 NY2d 683, 688-689). We have considered the remaining contentions of defendant and conclude that they are without merit.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.