green
Positive treatment
7.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Williams
The dissent nevertheless concludes that defendant's contention relating to pedigree information is properly before us because the motion court "expressly decided the question raised on appeal" (CPL 470.05 [2]; see People v Prado , 4 NY3d 725, 726 [2004], rearg denied 4 NY3d 795 [2005]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Curry
We therefore conclude that the court "expressly decided the question raised on appeal," thereby preserving defendant's specific contention for our review (CPL 470.05 [2]; see People v Prado , 4 NY3d 725, 726 [2004], rearg denied 4 NY3d 795 [2005]; Gambale , 150 AD3d at 1668 ; cf. People v Graham , 25 NY3d 994, 997 [2015]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Johnson
We therefore agree with defendant that the court "expressly decided the question raised on appeal," thereby preserving his specific contention for our review (CPL 470.05 [2]; see People v Prado , 4 NY3d 725, 726 [2004], rearg denied 4 NY3d 795 [2005]; Gambale , 150 AD3d at 1668 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
Town of Mexico v. County of Oswego
Seneca , 275 AD2d 988, 988-989 [4th Dept 2000]; see generally 1029 Sixth v Riniv Corp. , 9 AD3d 142, 149-150 [1st Dept 2004], lv dismissed 4 NY3d 795 [2005]; Weisblatt v Schwimmer , 249 AD2d 297, 298 [2d Dept 1998]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Gambale
We therefore conclude that the court “expressly decided the question raised on appeal,” thereby preserving defendant’s specific contention for our review (CPL 470.05 [2]; see People v Prado, 4 NY3d 725, 726 [2004], rearg denied 4 NY3d 795 [2005]; People v Davis, 69 AD3d 647, 648-649 [2010]; cf. People v Graham, 25 NY3d 994, 997 [2015]; Morman, 145 AD3d at 1435-1436 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
GAMBALE, JOSEPH J., PEOPLE v
We therefore conclude that the court “expressly decided the question raised on appeal,” thereby preserving defendant’s specific contention for our review (CPL 470.05 [2]; see People v Prado, 4 NY3d 725, 726 , rearg denied 4 NY3d 795 ; People v Davis, 69 AD3d 647, 648-649 ; cf. People v Graham, 25 NY3d 994, 997 ; Morman, 145 AD3d at 1435-1436).
discussed
Cited "see"
In re Nathaniel W.
Respondent mother failed to preserve for our review her further contentions that the petition is defective because it fails to comply with the requirements of Family Court Act § 614 (1) (c) (see Matter of Jennie EE., 187 AD2d 877, 877-878 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 706 [1993]; Matter of Dixie Lu EE., 142 AD2d 747, 747-748 [1988]); that the court prejudged the outcome of the dispositional phase of the proceeding, i.e., that the court was biased in favor of petitioner (see Matter of Tracey v Tracey, 235 AD2d 838, 839 [1997]; see generally People v Prado, 4 NY3d 725, 726 [2004], rearg denied 4 NY…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
255 Alameda LLC v. White Birch SPA Inc.
(2×)
Moreover, "literal enforcement of the terms of the stipulation of settlement is not unjust in this case, where the agreement was negotiated by sophisticated parties, all of whom were [*2]represented by counsel, and the default was neither inadvertent nor trivial" ( McKenzie v Vintage Hallmark , 302 AD2d 503, 504 [2003]; see also 1029 Sixth v Riniv Corp. , 9 AD3d 142 [2004], appeal dismissed 4 NY3d 795 [2005]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
580 Park Ave., Inc. v. Mirto
Moreover, literal enforcement of the terms of the stipulation of settlement is not unjust in this case, where the agreement was negotiated by sophisticated parties, all of whom were represented by counsel, and the default was neither inadvertent nor trivial ( see McKenzie v Vintage Hallmark, 302 AD2d 503 [2003]; see also 1029 Sixth v Riniv Corp. , 9 AD3d 142 [2004], appeal dismissed 4 NY3d 795 [2005]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Cadlerock Joint Venture, L.P. v. Rubenstein
The stipulation of settlement was clear, and literal enforcement of its terms is not unjust under the circumstances (McKenzie v Vintage Hallmark, 302 AD2d 503 [2003]; see also 1029 Sixth v Riniv Corp., 9 AD3d 142 [2004], appeal dismissed 4 NY3d 795 [2005]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
SHEEHY
v.
CLIFFORD CHANCE ROGERS & WELLS LLP
v.
CLIFFORD CHANCE ROGERS & WELLS LLP
Published
Motion for reargument or reconsideration denied.