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.
6 New York opinions name it 5 courts 1985–2018 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
White v. Fishergreen2 sentences1995(See, People v Keane, 76 AD2d 963 [3d Dept 1980]; People v Abel, 166 AD2d 841 [3d Dept 1990], supra.) 10 The Third Department, however, still believes that the two-hour rule is a rule of evidence as opposed to one of procedure (Matter of Cook v Adduci, 205 AD2d 903 [3d Dept 1994], lv denied 84 NY2d 811 [1994]), relying on the New York Court of Appeals statement in Matter of Viger v Passidomo ( 65 NY2d 705 , 707 [1985]) that "[t]he two-hour time period set forth in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 (1) is an evidentiary rule.” (See also, Matter of White v Fisher, 49 AD2d 450 [3d Dept 1975].) In Pe 1986The two-hour period set forth in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 (1) is an evidentiary rule used to qualify the result of the test for admission into evidence (Matter of Viger v Passidomo, 65 NY2d 705 , 707; Matter of White v Fisher, 49 AD2d 450, 451 ). | 1 | 3 |
People v. Paddockgreen2 sentences2018Finally, although we agree with the Appellate Term's conclusion that the warning pertaining to the admissibility of defendant's refusal was legally inaccurate and, therefore, inappropriate, we note again, as Judge Jasen did in his concurrence in Paddock , that the rights asserted by defendant here-insofar as they relate to breath tests-are statutory, not constitutional ( see Smith , 18 N.Y.3d at 548 , 942 N.Y.S.2d 426 , 965 N.E.2d 928 ; Kates , 53 N.Y.2d at 594 -595 , 444 N.Y.S.2d 446 , 428 N.E.2d 852 ; Thomas , 46 N.Y.2d at 109 , 412 N.Y.S.2d 845 , 385 N.E.2d 584 ; Paddock , 29 N.Y.2d at 505 2018Finally, although we agree with the Appellate Term's conclusion that the warning pertaining to the admissibility of defendant's refusal was legally inaccurate and, therefore, inappropriate, we note again, as Judge Jasen did in his concurrence in Paddock , that the rights asserted by defendant here-insofar as they relate to breath tests-are statutory, not constitutional ( see Smith , 18 N.Y.3d at 548 , 942 N.Y.S.2d 426 , 965 N.E.2d 928 ; Kates , 53 N.Y.2d at 594 -595 , 444 N.Y.S.2d 446 , 428 N.E.2d 852 ; Thomas , 46 N.Y.2d at 109 , 412 N.Y.S.2d 845 , 385 N.E.2d 584 ; Paddock , 29 N.Y.2d at 505 | 1 | 2 |
Rust v. Reyergreen2 sentences2018Therefore, it should be strictly construed ( see Rust v. Reyer , 91 N.Y.2d 355 , 360, 670 N.Y.S.2d 822 , 693 N.E.2d 1074 [1998] ; see also McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 304), further supporting an interpretation of the statute that would apply the two-hour limitation in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194(2)(a) to the evidentiary provision in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194(2)(f). 2018Therefore, it should be strictly construed ( see Rust v. Reyer , 91 N.Y.2d 355 , 360, 670 N.Y.S.2d 822 , 693 N.E.2d 1074 [1998] ; see also McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 304), further supporting an interpretation of the statute that would apply the two-hour limitation in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194(2)(a) to the evidentiary provision in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194(2)(f). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Sesmangreen1 sentence1995(See, People v Keane, 76 AD2d 963 [3d Dept 1980]; People v Abel, 166 AD2d 841 [3d Dept 1990], supra.) 10 The Third Department, however, still believes that the two-hour rule is a rule of evidence as opposed to one of procedure (Matter of Cook v Adduci, 205 AD2d 903 [3d Dept 1994], lv denied 84 NY2d 811 [1994]), relying on the New York Court of Appeals statement in Matter of Viger v Passidomo ( 65 NY2d 705 , 707 [1985]) that "[t]he two-hour time period set forth in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 (1) is an evidentiary rule.” (See also, Matter of White v Fisher, 49 AD2d 450 [3d Dept 1975].) In Pe | 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. Kates
green
2 sentences2018Finally, although we agree with the Appellate Term's conclusion that the warning pertaining to the admissibility of defendant's refusal was legally inaccurate and, therefore, inappropriate, we note again, as Judge Jasen did in his concurrence in Paddock , that the rights asserted by defendant here-insofar as they relate to breath tests-are statutory, not constitutional ( see Smith , 18 N.Y.3d at 548 , 942 N.Y.S.2d 426 , 965 N.E.2d 928 ; Kates , 53 N.Y.2d at 594 -595 , 444 N.Y.S.2d 446 , 428 N.E.2d 852 ; Thomas , 46 N.Y.2d at 109 , 412 N.Y.S.2d 845 , 385 N.E.2d 584 ; Paddock , 29 N.Y.2d at 505 2018Finally, although we agree with the Appellate Term's conclusion that the warning pertaining to the admissibility of defendant's refusal was legally inaccurate and, therefore, inappropriate, we note again, as Judge Jasen did in his concurrence in Paddock , that the rights asserted by defendant here-insofar as they relate to breath tests-are statutory, not constitutional ( see Smith , 18 N.Y.3d at 548 , 942 N.Y.S.2d 426 , 965 N.E.2d 928 ; Kates , 53 N.Y.2d at 594 -595 , 444 N.Y.S.2d 446 , 428 N.E.2d 852 ; Thomas , 46 N.Y.2d at 109 , 412 N.Y.S.2d 845 , 385 N.E.2d 584 ; Paddock , 29 N.Y.2d at 505 | 2 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Thomas
green
2 sentences2018Finally, although we agree with the Appellate Term's conclusion that the warning pertaining to the admissibility of defendant's refusal was legally inaccurate and, therefore, inappropriate, we note again, as Judge Jasen did in his concurrence in Paddock , that the rights asserted by defendant here-insofar as they relate to breath tests-are statutory, not constitutional ( see Smith , 18 N.Y.3d at 548 , 942 N.Y.S.2d 426 , 965 N.E.2d 928 ; Kates , 53 N.Y.2d at 594 -595 , 444 N.Y.S.2d 446 , 428 N.E.2d 852 ; Thomas , 46 N.Y.2d at 109 , 412 N.Y.S.2d 845 , 385 N.E.2d 584 ; Paddock , 29 N.Y.2d at 505 2018Finally, although we agree with the Appellate Term's conclusion that the warning pertaining to the admissibility of defendant's refusal was legally inaccurate and, therefore, inappropriate, we note again, as Judge Jasen did in his concurrence in Paddock , that the rights asserted by defendant here-insofar as they relate to breath tests-are statutory, not constitutional ( see Smith , 18 N.Y.3d at 548 , 942 N.Y.S.2d 426 , 965 N.E.2d 928 ; Kates , 53 N.Y.2d at 594 -595 , 444 N.Y.S.2d 446 , 428 N.E.2d 852 ; Thomas , 46 N.Y.2d at 109 , 412 N.Y.S.2d 845 , 385 N.E.2d 584 ; Paddock , 29 N.Y.2d at 505 | 2 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Smith
green
2 sentences2018Finally, although we agree with the Appellate Term's conclusion that the warning pertaining to the admissibility of defendant's refusal was legally inaccurate and, therefore, inappropriate, we note again, as Judge Jasen did in his concurrence in Paddock , that the rights asserted by defendant here-insofar as they relate to breath tests-are statutory, not constitutional ( see Smith , 18 N.Y.3d at 548 , 942 N.Y.S.2d 426 , 965 N.E.2d 928 ; Kates , 53 N.Y.2d at 594 -595 , 444 N.Y.S.2d 446 , 428 N.E.2d 852 ; Thomas , 46 N.Y.2d at 109 , 412 N.Y.S.2d 845 , 385 N.E.2d 584 ; Paddock , 29 N.Y.2d at 505 2018Finally, although we agree with the Appellate Term's conclusion that the warning pertaining to the admissibility of defendant's refusal was legally inaccurate and, therefore, inappropriate, we note again, as Judge Jasen did in his concurrence in Paddock , that the rights asserted by defendant here-insofar as they relate to breath tests-are statutory, not constitutional ( see Smith , 18 N.Y.3d at 548 , 942 N.Y.S.2d 426 , 965 N.E.2d 928 ; Kates , 53 N.Y.2d at 594 -595 , 444 N.Y.S.2d 446 , 428 N.E.2d 852 ; Thomas , 46 N.Y.2d at 109 , 412 N.Y.S.2d 845 , 385 N.E.2d 584 ; Paddock , 29 N.Y.2d at 505 | 2 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Keane
green
1 sentence1995(See, People v Keane, 76 AD2d 963 [3d Dept 1980]; People v Abel, 166 AD2d 841 [3d Dept 1990], supra.) 10 The Third Department, however, still believes that the two-hour rule is a rule of evidence as opposed to one of procedure (Matter of Cook v Adduci, 205 AD2d 903 [3d Dept 1994], lv denied 84 NY2d 811 [1994]), relying on the New York Court of Appeals statement in Matter of Viger v Passidomo ( 65 NY2d 705 , 707 [1985]) that "[t]he two-hour time period set forth in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 (1) is an evidentiary rule.” (See also, Matter of White v Fisher, 49 AD2d 450 [3d Dept 1975].) In Pe | 1 | 1995–1995 |
People v. Abel
green
1 sentence1995(See, People v Keane, 76 AD2d 963 [3d Dept 1980]; People v Abel, 166 AD2d 841 [3d Dept 1990], supra.) 10 The Third Department, however, still believes that the two-hour rule is a rule of evidence as opposed to one of procedure (Matter of Cook v Adduci, 205 AD2d 903 [3d Dept 1994], lv denied 84 NY2d 811 [1994]), relying on the New York Court of Appeals statement in Matter of Viger v Passidomo ( 65 NY2d 705 , 707 [1985]) that "[t]he two-hour time period set forth in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 (1) is an evidentiary rule.” (See also, Matter of White v Fisher, 49 AD2d 450 [3d Dept 1975].) In Pe | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Cook v. Adduci
green
1 sentence1995(See, People v Keane, 76 AD2d 963 [3d Dept 1980]; People v Abel, 166 AD2d 841 [3d Dept 1990], supra.) 10 The Third Department, however, still believes that the two-hour rule is a rule of evidence as opposed to one of procedure (Matter of Cook v Adduci, 205 AD2d 903 [3d Dept 1994], lv denied 84 NY2d 811 [1994]), relying on the New York Court of Appeals statement in Matter of Viger v Passidomo ( 65 NY2d 705 , 707 [1985]) that "[t]he two-hour time period set forth in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 (1) is an evidentiary rule.” (See also, Matter of White v Fisher, 49 AD2d 450 [3d Dept 1975].) In Pe | 1 | 1995–1995 |
United States v. Matlock
green
1 sentence1990(Matter of Viger v Passidomo, 65 NY2d 705 .) The controlling standard of proof at evidence suppression hearings should be no greater than by a preponderance of the evidence (United States v Matlock, 415 US 164 [1974]; 4 LaFave, Search and Seizure § 11.2 [2d ed 1987]). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.