People v. McKnight, 417 N.E.2d 1009 (NY 1980). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. McKnight, 417 N.E.2d 1009 (NY 1980). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2011 · …all that is required by section 198-c is that an employer abide by the terms of his agreement to provide benefits. at p. 477 ⚠ not in text
24 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Sosnowy v. A. Perri Farms, Inc. (nyed, 2011-02-10)
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Sosnowy v. A. Perri Farms, Inc. (2×) also: Cited as authority (quoted)
E.D.N.Y · 2011 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
all that is required by section 198-c is that an employer abide by the terms of his agreement to provide benefits.
discussed Cited "see" Biberaj v. Pritchard Industries, Inc. (2×)
S.D.N.Y. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
(Pritchard Br. at 20); see Glenville Gage Co., Inc. v. Industrial Bd. of Appeals, 70 A.D.2d 283 , 421 N.Y.S.2d 408 (1979), aff'd, 52 N.Y.2d 777 , 436 N.Y.S.2d 621 , 417 N.E.2d 1009 (1980).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Keith (2×)
Ohio Ct. App. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gordon v. Gordon (1979), 70 A.D.2d 86, 91 , 419 N.Y.S.2d 684, 688 , affirmed (1980), 51 N.Y.2d 773 , 436 N.Y.S.2d 621 , 417 N.E.2d 1009 ; In re Jacobs (1982), 128 Cal.App.3d 273, 285-286 , 180 Cal.Rptr. 234, 241-242 .
examined Cited "see, e.g." Sternlicht v. Sternlicht (4×)
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2003 · signal: see also · confidence low
Id.; see also Gordon v. Gordon, 70 A.D.2d 86 , 419 N.Y.S.2d 684, 688-89 (N.Y.App.Div.1979) (stating re-buttable presumption but holding concluso-ry allegations in affidavit insufficient to overcome presumption), aff'd, 52 N.Y.2d 773 , 436 N.Y.S.2d 621 , 417 N.E.2d 1009 (1980).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Ciembroniewicz
N.Y. App. Div. · 1991 · signal: see also · confidence low
"A No.” The error in admitting the statement cannot be deemed harmless because proof of defendant’s guilt, although sufficient to support the convictions, was far from overwhelming; moreover, even if it had been overwhelming, there is a significant probability that the jury would have acquitted defendant had Viscusi’s statement and the testimony surrounding it not been admitted (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 242 ; see also, People v McKnight, 71 AD2d 801, 804 [dissenting mem], revd on dissenting mem below 52 NY2d 760).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Edward McKnight
New York Court of Appeals.
Dec 18, 1980.
417 N.E.2d 1009
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Joseph B. Mistrett and Rose H. Sconiers for appellant., Edward C. Cosgrove, District Attorney (John J. De Franks of counsel), for respondent.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 74%
Citer courts: E.D. New York (1)

OPINION OF THE COURT

Order reversed and a new trial ordered for reasons stated in the dissenting memorandum at the Appellate Division (71 AD2d 801, 802-804).

Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer.