People v. Walton, 94 A.D.2d 709 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983). · Go Syfert
People v. Walton, 94 A.D.2d 709 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
22 citation events (19 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Jianqiu Xia v. Finnie (nysupctkings, 2025-07-07)
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987 2006 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jianqiu Xia v. Finnie
N.Y. Sup. Kings · 2025 · confidence medium
Indeed, the "appointment of a temporary receiver is an extreme remedy resulting in the taking and withholding of possession of property from a party without an adjudication on the merits" (Schachner v Sikowitz, 94 AD2d 709, 709 [2d Dept 1983] [citation omitted]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Suissa v. Baron
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 6401 to appoint a temporary receiver of the certain real property in Northport and all of its contents. “ ‘The appointment of a temporary receiver is an extreme remedy resulting in the taking and withholding of possession of property from a party without an adjudication on the merits’ ” (Vardaris Tech, Inc. v Paleros Inc., 49 AD3d 631, 632 [2008], quoting Schachner v Sikowitz, 94 AD2d 709, 709 [1983]), and “ ‘should be granted only where the moving party has made a clear eviden…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Suissa v. Baron
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 6401 to appoint a temporary receiver of the certain real property in Northport and all of its contents. “ ‘The appointment of a temporary receiver is an extreme remedy resulting in the taking and withholding of possession of property from a party without an adjudication on the merits’ ” (Vardaris Tech, Inc. v Paleros Inc., 49 AD3d 631, 632 [2008], quoting Schachner v Sikowitz, 94 AD2d 709, 709 [1983]), and “ ‘should be granted only where the moving party has made a clear eviden…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Vardaris Tech, Inc. v. Paleros Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
“The appointment of a temporary receiver is an extreme remedy resulting in the taking and withholding of possession of property from a party without an adjudication on the merits” (Schachner v Sikowitz, 94 AD2d 709, 709 [1983]).
discussed Cited "see" American Cancer Socy., Inc. v. Ashby
N.Y. App. Div. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
The appointment of a temporary receiver "'is an extreme remedy resulting in the taking and withholding of possession of property from a party without an adjudication on the merits'" ( id. , quoting Manning-Kranes v Manning-Franzman , 175 AD3d 1403 , 1403 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Schachner v Sikowitz , 94 AD2d 709, 709 ).
discussed Cited "see" Quick v. Quick
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
Moreover, “[t]he appointment of a temporary receiver is an extreme remedy resulting in the taking and withholding of possession of property from a party without an adjudication on the merits” (Vardaris Tech, Inc. v Paleros Inc., 49 AD3d 631, 632 [2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Schachner v Sikowitz, 94 AD2d 709 [1983]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Ronnie Walton
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 2, 1983.
94 A.D.2d 709
Published

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Booth, J.), rendered August 7, 1980, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. By order of this court, dated July 19, 1982 {People v Walton, 89 AD2d 611), this matter was remitted to Criminal Term for a hearing on whether a four-page summary of an interview between the complainant and an Assistant District Attorney, which was not turned over to the defense as Rosario material (see People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286, cert den 368 US 866), was a duplicative equivalent of the complainant’s Grand Jury testimony. Criminal Term, after comparing the two, found that the summary was indeed duplicative of the complainant’s testimony before the Grand Jury. After an independent comparison of the two transcriptions of the complainant’s statements we have concluded that Criminal Term’s finding is correct. Hence, the People’s failure to turn over the summary was not error since it was cumulative to the transcript of complainant’s Grand Jury testimony {People v Consolazio, 40 NY2d 446, cert den 433 US 914). We find no merit to appellant’s remaining contention. Titone, J. P., Mangano, Weinstein and Boyers, JJ., concur.