Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 New York opinions name it 4 courts 1958–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Bookman v. . City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences1997This being so, the decision of the Court of Appeals in Bookman v City of New York ( 200 NY 53, 56 ) takes on significance, for the court there stated with regard to the form of an oath in general that '[w]hatever the form adopted, it must be in the presence of an officer authorized to administer it, and it must be an unequivocal and present act by which the affiant consciously takes upon himself the obligation of an oath.’ "In our view, the first Bookman requirement was satisfied in the case at bar by the signing of the waiver instrument in the presence of the Grand Jury foreman (see CPL 190.2 1981This being so, the decision of the Court of Appeals in Bookman v City of New Yor k ( 200 NY 53, 56 ) takes on significance, for the court there stated with regard to the form of an oath in general that “ [w]hatever the form adopted, it must be in the presence of an officer authorized to administer it, and it must be an unequivocal and present act by which the affiant consciously takes upon himself the obligation of an oath.” In our view, the first Bookman requirement was satisfied in the case at bar by the signing of the waiver instrument in the presence of the Grand Jury foreman (see CPL 190. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Sloleygreen1 sentence2022Moreover, "the record of the Grand Jury procedures establishes voluntariness, representation and discussion with his attorney, and·the fact that he was specifically advised that his Grand Jury testimony could be used against him" (People v Padron, 118 AD2d 5 _99, 600 [2d Dept 1986], Iv. denied 67 NY2d 1055 [1986]; see People v Sloley, 179 AD3d 1308, 1312 [3d Dept 2020], Iv. denied 35 NY3d 974 [2020]; People v Chasey, 5 AD3d 815, 816 [3d Dept 2004], Iv. 4 While the CPL§ 710.30 (I) (a) Notice refers to a Grand Jury testimony date of April 14, 2021, it is clear that the actual year of presentatio | 1 | 1 |
People v. Chaseygreen1 sentence2022Moreover, "the record of the Grand Jury procedures establishes voluntariness, representation and discussion with his attorney, and·the fact that he was specifically advised that his Grand Jury testimony could be used against him" (People v Padron, 118 AD2d 5 _99, 600 [2d Dept 1986], Iv. denied 67 NY2d 1055 [1986]; see People v Sloley, 179 AD3d 1308, 1312 [3d Dept 2020], Iv. denied 35 NY3d 974 [2020]; People v Chasey, 5 AD3d 815, 816 [3d Dept 2004], Iv. 4 While the CPL§ 710.30 (I) (a) Notice refers to a Grand Jury testimony date of April 14, 2021, it is clear that the actual year of presentatio | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Dennis
green
1 sentence1985According to the provisions of CPL 580.20, the defendant must have received his sentence in the State where he is being detained before the provisions of this section become applicable (People v Lublin, 62 AD2d 1022 ; People ex rel. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
In re the Probate of the Last Will & Testament, & Codicil Thereto, of Carpenter
neutral
1 sentence1958No facts tending to prove that actual fraud was committed are irrelevant if they reasonably bear on that issue (Matter of Carpenter, 252 App. Div. 885 ). | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.