Weese v. State, 5 N.Y.3d 707 (NY 2005). · Go Syfert
Weese v. State, 5 N.Y.3d 707 (NY 2005). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
124 citation events (124 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Angletti v. Morreale (nyappdiv, 2015-08-19)
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005 2015 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Angletti v. Morreale
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
Second, the petitioner must effectuate “ ‘actual delivery of the instrument of notice not later than the last day on which the proceeding may be commenced’ ” (Matter of Yellico v Ringer, 185 AD2d 965, 966 [1992]; see Matter of Riley v Democratic Party of Owasco, 21 AD3d 708, 709 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 707 [2005]).
discussed Cited "see" Angletti v. Morreale
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
Second, the petitioner must effectuate “ ‘actual delivery of the instrument of notice not later than the last day on which the proceeding may be commenced’ ” (Matter of Yellico v Ringer, 185 AD2d 965, 966 [1992]; see Matter of Riley v Democratic Party of Owasco, 21 AD3d 708, 709 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 707 [2005]).
discussed Cited "see" ANGLETTI, FRANCIS J. v. MORREALE, MARCUS
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
Second, the petitioner must effectuate “ ‘actual delivery of the instrument of notice not later than the last day on which the proceeding may be commenced’ ” (Matter of Yellico v Ringer, 185 AD2d 965, 966 ; see Matter of Riley v Democratic Party of Owasco, 21 AD3d 708, 709 , lv denied 5 NY3d 707 ).
discussed Cited "see" Brown v. State
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
Further, “the decision of the . . . court should not be disturbed upon appeal unless it is obvious that the court’s conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence” (Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490, 495 [1992] [internal quotation marks omitted], rearg denied 81 NY2d 835 [1993]; see Garofalo v State of New York, 17 AD3d 1109, 1110 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 707 [2005]; Farace v State of New York, 266 AD2d 870, 871 [1999]).
discussed Cited "see" Barnes v. New York State Division of Parole
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
“It is well settled that decisions regarding release on parole are discretionary and will not be disturbed absent a showing of irrationality bordering on impropriety” (Matter of Larmon v Travis, 14 AD3d 960, 961 [2005] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Salahuddin v Travis, 17 AD3d 760 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 707 [2005]).
discussed Cited "see" In re Cadejah AA.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
Although “proof of . . . neglect of one child shall be admissible evidence on the issue of the . . . neglect of any other child” (Matter of John QQ., 19 AD3d 754, 756 [2005]; see Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [i]), “such evidence typically may not serve as the sole basis for a finding of neglect” (Matter of Evelyn B., 30 AD3d 913, 914 [2006]; see Matter of Rebecca X., 18 AD3d 896, 898 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 707 [2005]).
discussed Cited "see" Romer v. Dennison
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
And, provided the Board’s determination is made in accordance with statutory requirements (see Executive Law § 259-i [2] [c] [A]), such determination will not be disturbed absent a “showing of irrational ity bordering on impropriety” (Matter of Russo v New York State Bd. of Parole, 50 NY2d 69, 77 [1980]; see Matter of Salahuddin v Travis, 17 AD3d 760 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 707 [2005]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Pol v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: see also · confidence low
Dismissal of that part of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim predicated upon 12 NYCRR 23-3.3 (c) was proper because the work plaintiff was engaged in did not constitute demolition work as defined by the Industrial Code (see 12 NYCRR 23-1.4 [b] [16]), and therefore 12 NYCRR 23-3.3 (c) is inapplicable (cf. Medina v City of New York, 87 AD3d 907 [1st Dept 2011]; see also Joy v City of New York, 17 AD3d 300 [1st Dept 2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 707 [2005]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Mancini v. New York City Department of Environmental Protection
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · signal: see also · confidence low
The findings of a hearing officer, while entitled to much weight, are not conclusive and may be overruled by the officer with the power to remove or discipline, provided, of course, that the latter’s action is supported by substantial evidence (Matter of Simpson v Wolansky, 38 NY2d 391, 394 [1975]; see also Matter of Milano v New York City Taxi & Limousine Commn., 305 AD2d 326, 327 [2003], lv denied 5 NY3d 707 [2005] [respondent’s Commissioner/Chairperson entitled to disagree with the Administrative Law Judge’s credibility findings as to manner in which drug test was administered, and th…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
WEESE
v.
STATE OF NEW YORK.
New York Court of Appeals.
Aug 25, 2005.
5 N.Y.3d 707
Published

Motion for leave to appeal denied.