People v. Sims, 46 A.D.3d 367 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Sims, 46 A.D.3d 367 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Feder v. Cornell Univ. (nysupctnewyork, 2026-03-04)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Feder v. Cornell Univ.
N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. · 2026 · confidence medium
Inc. v ASRR Suzer 218, LLC, 140 AD3d 340 , 431 [1st Dept 2016] [citing Nobu Next Door, LLC v Fine Arts Hous., Inc., 4 NY3d 839, 840 [2005]]). “[T]he purpose of a preliminary injunction is to maintain the status quo,” and the decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction rests in the discretion of the motion court (360 W. 11th LLC v ACG Credit Co. II, LLC, 46 AD3d 367, 367 [1st Dept 2007]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Boxer v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · signal: see also · confidence medium
In opposition to the MTA defendants’ prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, Baker’s Dozen failed to present any evidence to establish its compliance with its contractual obligation to obtain liability insurance naming the MTA defendants as an additional insureds (see Chaehee Jung v Kum Gang, Inc., 22 AD3d 441, 443 [2005]; Taylor v Gannett Co., 303 AD2d 397 [2003]; see also Eagle v Chelsea Piers, L.P., 46 AD3d 367, 368 [2007]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Billy Sims
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 18, 2007.
46 A.D.3d 367
Published

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard D. Carruthers, J.), entered on or about June 9, 2006, which denied defendant’s motion for resentencing under the Drug Law Reform Act of 2005 (L 2005, ch 643), unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in determining that substantial justice dictated denial of the application (see e.g. People v Vasquez, 41 AD3d 111 [2007], lv dismissed 9 NY3d 870 [2007]). The court considered the appropriate criteria for granting or denying such an application, with particular reference to defendant’s very serious criminal record. In its decision, the court expressly stated the applicable standard. While the court used different language elsewhere in its decision, we do not read that language as indicative of a misapprehension by the court of the correct legal standard (cf. People v Delgado, 80 NY2d 780 [1992]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, Williams, McGuire and Kavanagh, JJ.