People v. Fulton, 447 N.E.2d 56 (NY 1983). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Fulton, 447 N.E.2d 56 (NY 1983). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
44 citation events (15 in the last 25 years) across 14 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Malloy v. Smith (arkctapp, 2017-05-10)
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984 2005 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Malloy v. Smith (2×)
Ark. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
See Alexander Smith Carpet v. Walter Arnold, Inc., 94 A.D.2d 643 , 462 N.Y.S.2d 206 (N.Y. 1983) (in which the New York Supreme Court held that service was defective because the Massapequa address that the summons was delivered to was not the actual place of the defendant’s business or residence); Bossuk v. Steinberg, 58 N.Y.2d 916 , 460 N.Y.S.2d 509 , 447 N.E.2d 56, 58 (1983) (“[W]e find equally without merit defendant’s contention that proof of the mailing of a copy of the summons, as further required by the statute, was lacking because the Sheriff’s employee who actually did so was n…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Stein v. American General Life Insurance Company
2d Cir. · 2016 · confidence medium
Co., 758 F.2d 811, 817 (2d Cir. 1985); Bossuk v. Steinberg, 58 N.Y.2d 916 , 460 N.Y.S.2d 509 , 447 N.E.2d 56, 58 (1983).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Binion
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Thereafter, the court properly considered extrinsic evidence of the informants’ existence in reaching its determination that the two informants existed (see People v Fulton, 58 NY2d 914, 916 [1983]; cf. People v Phillips, 242 AD2d 856, 856 [1997]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Binion
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Thereafter, the court properly considered extrinsic evidence of the informants’ existence in reaching its determination that the two informants existed (see People v Fulton, 58 NY2d 914, 916 [1983]; cf. People v Phillips, 242 AD2d 856, 856 [1997]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) BB & T v. Taylor
S.C. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
Similarly, the New York Court of Appeals held “if the person to be served interposes a door between himself and the process server, the latter may leave the summons outside the door, provided the person to be served is made aware he is doing so.” Bossuk v. Steinberg , 447 N.E.2d 56, 58 (N.Y. 1983).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Adler, Coleman Clearing Corp.
Bankr. S.D.N.Y. · 1997 · confidence medium
Here, the presence of such proof establishes prima fa-cie evidence of the mailing and creates a rebuttable presumption as to receipt”); accord Village of Kiryas Joel Development Corp. v. Insurance Co. of North America, 996 F.2d 1390, 1394 (2d Cir.1993) (employee’s statement of customary office procedure plus record indicating that employee mailed letter sufficient to create presumption); Bossuk v. Steinberg, 58 N.Y.2d 916, 919 , 460 N.Y.S.2d 509, 510 , 447 N.E.2d 56, 58 (1983) (rejecting argument that there was insufficient proof of mailing “because the employee who actually did so was n…
discussed Cited "see" Manigault v. MacY's East, LLC
E.D.N.Y · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Meckel, 758 F.2d at 817 (“[U]nder New York law, personal knowledge is required only to establish regular office procedure, not the particular mailing.” (citing Bossuk v. Steinberg, 58 N.Y.2d 916, 919 , 460 N.Y.S.2d 509 , 447 N.E.2d 56 (1983))).
examined Cited "see" Weiss v. Glemp (3×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
S.D.N.Y. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bossuk, 460 N.Y.S.2d at 510 , 447 N.E.2d at 58 (holding “where the person to be served interposes a door between himself and the process server, the latter may leave the summons outside the door, provided the person to be served is made aware that he is doing so”); Francis S. Denney, Inc. v. I.S.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Sammy Fulton, Appellant
New York Court of Appeals.
Feb 17, 1983.
447 N.E.2d 56
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Abigail Everett and William E. Hellerstein for appellant., Elizabeth Holtzman, District Attorney (Katherine N. Rose and Barbara D. Underwood of counsel), for respondent.
Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg, Meyer and Simons Concur.
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

[*916] Even if we were to assume, as defendant contends, that his pro se demand for production or disclosure of the informant encompassed a request for an in camera inquiry-in accordance with the procedures outlined in People v Darden (34 NY2d 177, 181), the People’s inability to produce her at the hearing the Appellate Division directed did not mandate suppression of the items seized at the time of defendant’s arrest. For the record supports both the finding that the informant existed and that the People made diligent efforts to comply with the direction to find her (cf. People v Jenkins, 41 NY2d 307). Nor was it an abuse of discretion to deny the hearing. In sum, we find no reason to overrule the determination that, even absent disclosure, there was a sufficient showing of probable cause (People v Leyva, 38 NY2d 160, 172).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg, Meyer and Simons concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.