People v. Pastore, 2017 NY Slip Op 3609 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017). · Go Syfert
People v. Pastore, 2017 NY Slip Op 3609 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Perl v. Siegelbaum (2×)
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2023 · confidence medium
The Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim is not dismissed The defendants next argue that the breach of fiduciary duty claim should be dismissed because Mr. Perl improperly asserts derivative and not direct claims ( Dian Kui Su v Sing Ming Chao , 150 AD3d 424, 425 [1st Dept 2017]), that under the partnership agreement only Mr. Siegelbaum's GP Entity (which he controlled) could bring derivative claims and that no fiduciary duties were owed to Mr. Perl under Cayman Law.
discussed Cited "see" Kramer v. Meridian Capital Group, LLC
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
"A complaint the allegations of which confuse a shareholder's derivative and individual rights will . . . be dismissed" ( Abrams v Donati , 66 NY2d at 953 ; see Dian Kui Su v Sing Ming Chao , 150 AD3d 424, 425 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Robert Pastore, Appellant
3897 5477/12.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 4, 2017.
2017 NY Slip Op 3609
Sweeny, Gische, Kahn, Gesmer.
Published

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, (Roger S. Hayes, J.), rendered July 17, 2013, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of promoting prison contraband in the first degree, and sentencing him to a determinate term of 1½ to 4½ years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s credibility determinations. There was ample evidence that defendant knowingly possessed the scalpel that was discovered in his cell during a routine search, given, among other things, that it was a single-occupancy cell, inmates were not permitted to go other inmate’s cells, and there was no evidence that someone other than defendant occupied the cell between its last search and the search that revealed the contraband. The fact that no other inmate was housed in this cell between the two searches was established by a combination of the specific recollection of a Department of Correction captain and evidence of the Department’s procedures in searching cells at the time of a transfer of inmates.

Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Gische, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.