Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Jenkins
Therefore, based on the record before us, we see no reason to disturb the court’s denial of defendant’s motion (see People v Stephens, 6 AD3d 1123, 1124-1125 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 663 [2004], Iv denied on reconsideration 3 NY3d 682 [2004]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Jenkins
Therefore, based on the record before us, we see no reason to disturb the court’s denial of defendant’s motion (see People v Stephens, 6 AD3d 1123, 1124-1125 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 663 [2004], Iv denied on reconsideration 3 NY3d 682 [2004]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Montgomery
The issue whether defense counsel made the alleged statement presented a credibility issue that the court was entitled to resolve against defendant after affording him a reasonable opportunity to be heard (see People v Dozier, 12 AD3d 1176 [2004]; People v Stephens, 6 AD3d 1123, 1124 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 663 , 682 [2004]; see also People v Irvine, 42 AD3d 949 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 962 [2007]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Wilson
Defendant alleged in support of his motion that he had been threatened by another inmate and was therefore coerced into pleading guilty, and the court determined following a hearing that defendant’s testimony concerning the alleged coercion was incredible as a matter of law. “ ‘Issues of credibility are primarily for the hearing court and its findings should be upheld unless they are clearly erroneous’ ” (People v Stephens, 6 AD3d 1123, 1124 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 663 , 682 [2004]), and here the court’s findings are supported by the record.
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Henderson
The intent of our prior decision was for the court to conduct a hearing and decide the motion by resolving any issues of credibility that arose at the hearing (see id. at 1671; see generally People v Stephens, 6 AD3d 1123, 1124 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 663 [2004], denied upon reconsideration 3 NY3d 682 [2004]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Henderson
The intent of our prior decision was for the court to conduct a hearing and decide the motion by resolving any issues of credibility that arose at the hearing (see id. at 1671; see generally People v Stephens, 6 AD3d 1123, 1124 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 663 [2004], denied upon reconsideration 3 NY3d 682 [2004]).
discussed
Cited "see"
HENDERSON, JR., ANTHONY T., PEOPLE v
The intent of our prior decision was for the court to conduct a hearing and decide the motion by resolving any issues of credibility that arose at the hearing (see id. at 1671; see generally People v Stephens, 6 AD3d 1123, 1124 , lv denied 3 NY3d 663 , reconsideration denied 3 NY3d 682 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Irvine
We conclude that the court conducted a sufficient inquiry and afforded defendant a “reasonable opportunity to present his contentions” (People v Tinsley, 35 NY2d 926, 927 [1974]; see People v Stephens, 6 AD3d 1123, 1124 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 663 , 682 [2004]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Eastman Kodak Company
v.
LSW Industries, Inc.
v.
LSW Industries, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Apr 30, 2004.
Published
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Thomas A. Stander, J.), entered October 23, 2002. The order granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and awarded plaintiff judgment in the amount of $82,646, plus interest.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated at Supreme Court. Present—Green, J.P, Hurl-butt, Kehoe, Gorski and Hayes, JJ.