SEBAG v. Narvaez, 925 N.E.2d 579 (NY 2010). · Go Syfert
Search
SEBAG v. Narvaez, 925 N.E.2d 579 (NY 2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events (16 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. McKoy (nyappdiv, 2023-06-09)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" People v. McKoy
N.Y. App. Div. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
Although a prosecutor has a "duty to correct [trial testimony that the prosecutor] knows to be false and [to] elicit the truth" ( People v Savvides , 1 NY2d 554, 557 [1956]; see People v Colon , 13 NY3d 343, 349 [2009], rearg denied 14 NY3d 750 [2010]; People v Williams , 61 AD3d 1383, 1383 [4th Dept 2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 751 [2009]), the record contains no evidence that the prosecutor knowingly elicited or failed to correct false testimony or misled the jury ( see Reed , 151 AD3d at 1823 ; Mulligan , 118 AD3d at 1374; Williams , 61 AD3d at 1383 ; People v Encarnacion , 269 AD2d 779, 780 [4…
discussed Cited "see" People v. McKoy
N.Y. App. Div. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
Although a prosecutor has a "duty to correct [trial testimony that the prosecutor] knows to be false and [to] elicit the truth" ( People v Savvides , 1 NY2d 554, 557 [1956]; see People v Colon , 13 NY3d 343, 349 [2009], rearg denied 14 NY3d 750 [2010]; People v Williams , 61 AD3d 1383, 1383 [4th Dept 2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 751 [2009]), the record contains no evidence that the prosecutor knowingly elicited or failed to correct false testimony or misled the jury ( see Reed , 151 AD3d at 1823 ; Mulligan , 118 AD3d at 1374; Williams , 61 AD3d at 1383 ; People v Encarnacion , 269 AD2d 779, 780 [4…
discussed Cited "see" Keil v. Keil
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
Plaintiff argues that because her expert had already factored into his conclusions a reduced multiple accounting for, among other things, defendant’s key role in the business, there was no basis upon which the court could further reduce the value of the business on that same ground. “ ‘[T]he valuation of [a] business for equitable distribution purposes [is] an exercise [properly] within Supreme Court’s fact-finding power to be guided by expert testimony’ ” (Nissen v Nissen, 17 AD3d 819, 821 [2005], quoting Hiatt v Tremper-Hiatt, 6 AD3d 1014, 1015 [2004]; see Sieger v Sieger, 51 AD3…
discussed Cited "see" People v. Meacham
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we conclude that there was a “ ‘valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences [that] could lead a rational person’ to convict” defendant of gang assault in the first degree (People v Santi, 3 NY3d 234, 246 [2004]; see People v Sanchez, 13 NY3d 554, 566 [2009], rearg denied 14 NY3d 750 [2010]).
discussed Cited "see" MEACHAM, WILLIAM A., PEOPLE v
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 ), we conclude that there was a “ ‘valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences [that] could lead a rational person’ to convict” defendant of gang assault in the first degree (People v Santi, 3 NY3d 234, 246 ; see People v Sanchez, 13 NY3d 554, 566 , rearg denied 14 NY3d 750 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jacques Sebag, Appellant,
v.
Carlos Narvaez, Respondent
New York Court of Appeals.
Feb 16, 2010.
925 N.E.2d 579
Published

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal etc. denied [see 13 NY3d 711 (2009)].