People v. Delgado, 98 A.D.3d 957 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Delgado, 98 A.D.3d 957 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases, 2014–2020 · …a plaintiff asserting a cause of action under labor law 241 (6) must demonstrate a violation of a rule or regulation of the industrial code which gives a specific, positive command, and is applicable to the facts of the case ⚠ not in text Topic ↗
13 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Parrino v. Rauert (nyappdiv, 2022-08-17)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Parrino v. Rauert
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · confidence medium
Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the affidavit of their expert was speculative and conclusory in regard to this issue ( see Rodriguez v D & S Bldrs., LLC , 98 AD3d at 958-959).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." U.S. Bank, N.A. Ex Rel. Registered Holders of ML-CFC Commercial Mortgage Trust 2006-1 v. Squadron VCD, LLC
2d Cir. · 2012 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Denaro, 98 A.D.3d 964 , 950 N.Y.S.2d 581 , 582 (2d Dep’t 2012) (“In a mortgage foreclosure action, a plaintiff has standing where it is both the holder or assignee of the subject mortgage and the holder or assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced.” (internal quotation omitted)); cf. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Marchione, 69 A.D.3d 204 , 887 N.Y.S.2d 615 , 619 (2d Dep’t 2009) (despite a valid retroactive assignment, plaintiff lacked standing to bring foreclosure action because assignment was not executed before the action was first …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Rafael Delgado
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Sep 12, 2012.
98 A.D.3d 957
Published

— Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), dated May 27, 2011, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sexually violent sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California (386 US 738 [1967]), in which he moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by the defendant’s assigned counsel pursuant to Anders v California (386 US 738 [1967]), and, upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted (see Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d 252 [2011]; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631 [1976]; cf. People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Rivera, J.P., Florio, Eng and Cohen, JJ, concur.