green
Positive treatment
Trending · 123 recent citers
8.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 2008 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2008
2017
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "see"
Matter of Tyasia T.S. (Ruthanne J.)
Even assuming, arguendo, that the court erred in refusing to qualify one of the mother's witnesses as an expert during the fact-finding hearing, we conclude that the error is harmless because, given the circumstances of the case, the outcome would have been the same had the witness been qualified as an expert ( see Matter of Steven D., Jr. [Steven D., Sr.] , 188 AD3d 1770, 1772 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 908 [2021]; see generally Matter of Alyshia M.R. , 53 AD3d 1060, 1061 [4th Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 707 [2008]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Austin
Contrary to defendant's contention, risk factor 8 takes into account a defendant's "age at the time of commission" of the relevant sex offense (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 13 [2006]; see People v Pietarniello , 53 AD3d 475, 476-477 [2d Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 707 [2008]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Mills v. Niagara Frontier Transp. Auth.
Generally, in premises liability actions, where a defendant moves for summary judgment on the ground that it was not negligent, the defendant bears "the initial burden of establishing that it maintained its premises in a reasonably safe condition, had no actual or constructive knowledge of the [allegedly dangerous condition] and did not create the allegedly dangerous condition" ( Atkinson v Golub Corp. Co. , 278 AD2d 905, 905-906 [4th Dept 2000]; see Jarvis v LaFarge N. Am., Inc. [appeal No. 4], 52 AD3d 1179 , 1181-1182 [4th Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 707 [2008]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Miller
As this Court previously has observed, “the age of offenders at the time of their first sex crime and whether they have a criminal history that includes . . . sex offenses are not duplicative factors resulting in the assessment of points for the same conduct, but, rather, are cumulative predictors of the likelihood of reoffense” (People v Barney, 126 AD3d 1245, 1246 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 912 [2015]; see People v Pietarniello, 53 AD3d 475, 476-477 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 707 [2008]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Miller
As this Court previously has observed, “the age of offenders at the time of their first sex crime and whether they have a criminal history that includes . . . sex offenses are not duplicative factors resulting in the assessment of points for the same conduct, but, rather, are cumulative predictors of the likelihood of reoffense” (People v Barney, 126 AD3d 1245, 1246 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 912 [2015]; see People v Pietarniello, 53 AD3d 475, 476-477 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 707 [2008]).
discussed
Cited "see"
BALDWIN, RAOUL, PEOPLE v
Thus, in our view, the court properly providently exercised its discretion in granting the People’s application for an upward departure to a level three risk (see People v Kotler, 123 AD3d 992 , -4- 294 KA 15-00670 993, lv denied 26 NY3d 902 ; see generally People v Ellis, 52 AD3d 1272, 1273 , lv denied 11 NY3d 707 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Baldwin
Thus, in our view, the court properly providently exercised its discretion in granting the People’s application for an upward departure to a level three risk (see People v Kotler, 123 AD3d 992, 993 [2014], lv denied 26 NY3d 902 [2015]; see generally People v Ellis, 52 AD3d 1272, 1273 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 707 [2008]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Baldwin
Thus, in our view, the court properly providently exercised its discretion in granting the People’s application for an upward departure to a level three risk (see People v Kotler, 123 AD3d 992, 993 [2014], lv denied 26 NY3d 902 [2015]; see generally People v Ellis, 52 AD3d 1272, 1273 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 707 [2008]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Brown & Brown v. Theresa A. Johnson
A violation of any prong renders the covenant invalid” (BDO Seidman v Hirshberg, 93 NY2d 382, 388-389 [1999] [citations omitted]; see Natural Organics, Inc. v Kirkendall, 52 AD3d 488, 489 [2d Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 707 [2008]; D&W Diesel v McIntosh, 307 AD2d 750, 750-751 [4th Dept 2003]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hudson v. Eck
“To survive a motion to dismiss, a petition seeking to modify a prior order of custody and visitation must contain factual allegations of a change in circumstances warranting modification to ensure the best interests of the child” (Matter of Dobrouch v Reed, 61 AD3d 1288, 1289 [2009] [citations omitted]; see Matter of Perry v Perry, 52 AD3d 906, 906 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 707 [2008]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Matter of Christine X. v. James Y.
Accordingly, we reverse and remit the matter to Family Court for a hearing on whether there has been a change in circumstances warranting a modification of custody in the best interests of the children ( see Matter of Pollock v Wakefield , 145 AD3d at 1275 ; Matter of Freedman v Horike , 107 AD3d 1332 , 1333-1334 [3d Dept 2013]; compare Matter of Perry v Perry , 52 AD3d 906, 906-907 [3d Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 707 [2008]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Matter of Ayden G. (Nicky C.)
The court's determination that, even if given more time, respondents were not likely to change sufficiently to enable them to parent the child is entitled to great deference ( see Matthew S., Jr. , 169 AD3d at 1456; see also Matter of Alyshia M.R. , 53 AD3d 1060, 1061 [4th Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 707 [2008]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Matter of 101CO, LLC v. New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation
Accordingly, we find that petitioners' delay in commencing this action/proceeding was neither prejudicial nor so unreasonable as to warrant equitable relief ( see generally Turner v Caesar , 291 AD2d at 652; compare Matter of Clarke v Town of Sand Lake Zoning Bd. of Appeals , 52 AD3d 997, 999-1000 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 707 [2008]; Delameter v Rybaltowski , 161 AD2d 1001, 1002 [1990]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Letourneau v. Town of Berne
She challenged the building project at the beginning of construction, sought an injunction and continued to complain about the lack of regulatory compliance throughout the process, putting Procopio on notice that she would seek relief and that he was proceeding at his own peril in the face of her challenge (see Matter of Schupak v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Marbletown, 31 AD3d 1018 , 1019-1020 [2006], lv denied and dismissed 8 NY3d 842 [2007]; compare Matter of Clarke v Town of Sand Lake Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 52 AD3d 997, 999-1000 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 707 [2008]; Bailey v Chernoff,…
PEOPLE
v.
ELLIS.
v.
ELLIS.
Published
Motion for leave to appeal denied.