34 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Perezgreen2 sentences2011“Defendant’s constitutional challenge [in his main brief] to the persistent felony offender statute is not properly before us, inasmuch as there is no indication in the record that the Attorney General was given the requisite notice of that challenge” (People v Perez, 67 AD3d 1324, 1326 , lv denied 13 NY3d 941 ; see generally People v Brown, 64 AD3d 611 ; People v Mays, 54 AD3d 778 , lv denied 11 NY3d 927 ). 2011“Defendant’s constitutional challenge [in his main brief] to the persistent felony offender statute is not properly before us, inasmuch as there is no indication in the record that the At torney General was given the requisite notice of that challenge” (People v Perez, 67 AD3d 1324, 1326 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 941 [2010]; see generally People v Brown, 64 AD3d 611 [2009]; People v Mays, 54 AD3d 778 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 927 [2009]). | 3 | 5 |
People v. Quinonesgreen2 sentences2011In any event, that contention is not preserved for our review (see People v Perez, 67 AD3d 1324, 1326 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 941 [2010]; People v Phillips, 56 AD3d 1168 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 928 [2009]), and it is without merit (see People v Porto, 16 NY3d 93, 102 [2010]; see generally People v Quinones, 12 NY3d 116, 122-131 [2009], cert denied 558 US —, 130 S Ct 104 [2009]; People v Rivera, 5 NY3d 61, 66-68 [2005], cert denied 546 US 984 [2005]). 2011In any event, it is well settled that defendant’s contention that “New York’s discretionary persistent felony offender sentencing scheme is constitutionally infirm . . . [is] unavailing” (P eople v Quinones, 12 NY3d 116, 122 [2009], cert denied 558 US —, 130 S Ct 104 [2009]), and we reject his contentions in his pro se supplemental brief that he was improperly adjudicated a persistent felon and that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe. | 3 | 4 |
Genesee Brewing Co. v. Village of Sodus Pointgreen2 sentences2015While we agree with the Village that the notice of claim requirements of CPLR 9802 apply to all actions, including actions in equity (see Genesee Brewing Co. v Village of Sodus Point, 126 Misc 2d 827, 831-833 [1984], affd for reasons stated 115 AD2d 313 [1985]; see also Mendik v Incorporated Vil. of Lattingtown, 76 AD3d 616 , 618 [2010]; Greco v Incorporated Vil. of Freeport, 223 AD2d 674, 674 [1996]), we agree with the Town that an exception to the notice of claim requirement exists where “compliance would prevent obtaining the relief required because of the immediacy [of] the relief warrante 2015While we agree with the Village that the notice of claim requirements of CPLR 9802 apply to all actions, including actions in equity (see Genesee Brewing Co. v Village of Sodus Point, 126 Misc 2d 827, 831-833 [1984], affd for reasons stated 115 AD2d 313 [1985]; see also Mendik v Incorporated Vil. of Lattingtown, 76 AD3d 616 , 618 [2010]; Greco v Incorporated Vil. of Freeport, 223 AD2d 674, 674 [1996]), we agree with the Town that an exception to the notice of claim requirement exists where “compliance would prevent obtaining the relief required because of the immediacy [of] the relief warrante | 2 | 3 |
Greco v. Incorporated Village of Freeportgreen2 sentences2015While we agree with the Village that the notice of claim requirements of CPLR 9802 apply to all actions, including actions in equity (see Genesee Brewing Co. v Village of Sodus Point, 126 Misc 2d 827, 831-833 [1984], affd for reasons stated 115 AD2d 313 [1985]; see also Mendik v Incorporated Vil. of Lattingtown, 76 AD3d 616 , 618 [2010]; Greco v Incorporated Vil. of Freeport, 223 AD2d 674, 674 [1996]), we agree with the Town that an exception to the notice of claim requirement exists where “compliance would prevent obtaining the relief required because of the immediacy [of] the relief warrante 2015While we agree with the Village that the notice of claim requirements of CPLR 9802 apply to all actions, including actions in equity (see Genesee Brewing Co. v Village of Sodus Point, 126 Misc 2d 827, 831-833 [1984], affd for reasons stated 115 AD2d 313 [1985]; see also Mendik v Incorporated Vil. of Lattingtown, 76 AD3d 616 , 618 [2010]; Greco v Incorporated Vil. of Freeport, 223 AD2d 674, 674 [1996]), we agree with the Town that an exception to the notice of claim requirement exists where “compliance would prevent obtaining the relief required because of the immediacy [of] the relief warrante | 2 | 3 |
People v. Riveragreen2 sentences2011In any event, that contention is not preserved for our review (see People v Perez, 67 AD3d 1324, 1326 , lv denied 13 NY3d 941 ; People v Phillips, 56 AD3d 1168 , lv denied 11 NY3d 928 ), and it is without merit (see People v Porto, 16 NY3d 93, 102 ; see generally People v Quinones, 12 NY3d 116, 122-131 , cert denied ___ US ___, 130 S Ct 104 ; People v Rivera, 5 NY3d 61, 66-68 , cert denied 546 US 984 ). 2011In any event, that contention is not preserved for our review (see People v Perez, 67 AD3d 1324, 1326 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 941 [2010]; People v Phillips, 56 AD3d 1168 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 928 [2009]), and it is without merit (see People v Porto, 16 NY3d 93, 102 [2010]; see generally People v Quinones, 12 NY3d 116, 122-131 [2009], cert denied 558 US —, 130 S Ct 104 [2009]; People v Rivera, 5 NY3d 61, 66-68 [2005], cert denied 546 US 984 [2005]). | 2 | 3 |
Gina P. v. Stephen S.green2 sentences2020Petitioner's facial challenge to Social Services Law § 143-b cannot be considered, as it has not submitted proof that it served the Attorney General with the requisite notice of a challenge to the law's constitutionality (CPLR 1012[b][3]; Gina P. v Stephen S. , 33 AD3d 412, 415-416 [1st Dept 2006]). 2020Petitioner's facial challenge to Social Services Law § 143-b cannot be considered, as it has not submitted proof that it served the Attorney General with the requisite notice of a challenge to the law's constitutionality (CPLR 1012[b][3]; Gina P. v Stephen S. , 33 AD3d 412, 415-416 [1st Dept 2006]). | 2 | 2 |
The People v. Harvert Stephens, Also Known as Havert Stephensgreen2 sentences2020In any event, since we reject petitioner's as- applied challenge, "the facial validity of the statute is confirmed" ( People v Stephens , 28 NY3d 307, 312 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]). 2020In any event, since we reject petitioner's as-applied challenge, "the facial validity of the statute is confirmed" ( People v Stephens , 28 NY3d 307, 312 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Browngreen2 sentences2011“Defendant’s constitutional challenge [in his main brief] to the persistent felony offender statute is not properly before us, inasmuch as there is no indication in the record that the Attorney General was given the requisite notice of that challenge” (People v Perez, 67 AD3d 1324, 1326 , lv denied 13 NY3d 941 ; see generally People v Brown, 64 AD3d 611 ; People v Mays, 54 AD3d 778 , lv denied 11 NY3d 927 ). 2011“Defendant’s constitutional challenge [in his main brief] to the persistent felony offender statute is not properly before us, inasmuch as there is no indication in the record that the At torney General was given the requisite notice of that challenge” (People v Perez, 67 AD3d 1324, 1326 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 941 [2010]; see generally People v Brown, 64 AD3d 611 [2009]; People v Mays, 54 AD3d 778 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 927 [2009]). | 2 | 2 |
Vieira v. Californiagreen2 sentences2011In any event, that contention is not preserved for our review (see People v Perez, 67 AD3d 1324, 1326 , lv denied 13 NY3d 941 ; People v Phillips, 56 AD3d 1168 , lv denied 11 NY3d 928 ), and it is without merit (see People v Porto, 16 NY3d 93, 102 ; see generally People v Quinones, 12 NY3d 116, 122-131 , cert denied ___ US ___, 130 S Ct 104 ; People v Rivera, 5 NY3d 61, 66-68 , cert denied 546 US 984 ). 2011In any event, that contention is not preserved for our review (see People v Perez, 67 AD3d 1324, 1326 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 941 [2010]; People v Phillips, 56 AD3d 1168 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 928 [2009]), and it is without merit (see People v Porto, 16 NY3d 93, 102 [2010]; see generally People v Quinones, 12 NY3d 116, 122-131 [2009], cert denied 558 US —, 130 S Ct 104 [2009]; People v Rivera, 5 NY3d 61, 66-68 [2005], cert denied 546 US 984 [2005]). | 1 | 3 |
People v. Bastiangreen2 sentences2011Defendant’s constitutional challenge to the persistent felony offender statute is unpreserved for our review (see People v Besser, 96 NY2d 136, 148 [2001]; People v Watkins, 17 AD3d 1083, 1084 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 771 [2005]), and “ ‘there is no indication in the record that the Attorney General was given the requisite notice of that challenge’ ” (People v Bastian, 83 AD3d 1468, 1469-1470 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 813 [2011]). 2011Defendant’s constitutional challenge to the persistent felony offender statute is unpreserved for our review (see People v Besser, 96 NY2d 136, 148 ; People v Watkins, 17 AD3d 1083, 1084 , lv denied 5 NY3d 771 ), and “ ‘there is no indication in the record that the Attorney General was given the requisite notice of that challenge’ ” (People v Bastian, 83 AD3d 1468, 1469-1470 , lv denied 17 NY3d 813 ). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Rawlinsgreen2 sentences2011In any event, defendant’s challenge is without merit (see People v Battles, 16 NY3d 54, 59 [2010], cert denied 565 US —, 132 S Ct 123 [2011]; People v Rawlins, 10 NY3d 136, 158 [2008], cert denied sub nom. 2011In any event, defendant’s challenge is without merit (see People v Battles, 16 NY3d 54, 59 , cert denied ___ US ___ [Oct. 3, 2011]; People v Rawlins, 10 NY3d 136, 158 , cert denied sub nom. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Watkinsgreen2 sentences2011Defendant’s constitutional challenge to the persistent felony offender statute is unpreserved for our review (see People v Besser, 96 NY2d 136, 148 [2001]; People v Watkins, 17 AD3d 1083, 1084 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 771 [2005]), and “ ‘there is no indication in the record that the Attorney General was given the requisite notice of that challenge’ ” (People v Bastian, 83 AD3d 1468, 1469-1470 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 813 [2011]). 2011Defendant’s constitutional challenge to the persistent felony offender statute is unpreserved for our review (see People v Besser, 96 NY2d 136, 148 ; People v Watkins, 17 AD3d 1083, 1084 , lv denied 5 NY3d 771 ), and “ ‘there is no indication in the record that the Attorney General was given the requisite notice of that challenge’ ” (People v Bastian, 83 AD3d 1468, 1469-1470 , lv denied 17 NY3d 813 ). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Bessergreen2 sentences2011Defendant’s constitutional challenge to the persistent felony offender statute is unpreserved for our review (see People v Besser, 96 NY2d 136, 148 [2001]; People v Watkins, 17 AD3d 1083, 1084 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 771 [2005]), and “ ‘there is no indication in the record that the Attorney General was given the requisite notice of that challenge’ ” (People v Bastian, 83 AD3d 1468, 1469-1470 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 813 [2011]). 2011Defendant’s constitutional challenge to the persistent felony offender statute is unpreserved for our review (see People v Besser, 96 NY2d 136, 148 ; People v Watkins, 17 AD3d 1083, 1084 , lv denied 5 NY3d 771 ), and “ ‘there is no indication in the record that the Attorney General was given the requisite notice of that challenge’ ” (People v Bastian, 83 AD3d 1468, 1469-1470 , lv denied 17 NY3d 813 ). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Portogreen2 sentences2011In any event, that contention is not preserved for our review (see People v Perez, 67 AD3d 1324, 1326 , lv denied 13 NY3d 941 ; People v Phillips, 56 AD3d 1168 , lv denied 11 NY3d 928 ), and it is without merit (see People v Porto, 16 NY3d 93, 102 ; see generally People v Quinones, 12 NY3d 116, 122-131 , cert denied ___ US ___, 130 S Ct 104 ; People v Rivera, 5 NY3d 61, 66-68 , cert denied 546 US 984 ). 2011In any event, that contention is not preserved for our review (see People v Perez, 67 AD3d 1324, 1326 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 941 [2010]; People v Phillips, 56 AD3d 1168 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 928 [2009]), and it is without merit (see People v Porto, 16 NY3d 93, 102 [2010]; see generally People v Quinones, 12 NY3d 116, 122-131 [2009], cert denied 558 US —, 130 S Ct 104 [2009]; People v Rivera, 5 NY3d 61, 66-68 [2005], cert denied 546 US 984 [2005]). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Battlesgreen2 sentences2011In any event, defendant’s challenge is without merit (see People v Battles, 16 NY3d 54, 59 [2010], cert denied 565 US —, 132 S Ct 123 [2011]; People v Rawlins, 10 NY3d 136, 158 [2008], cert denied sub nom. 2011In any event, defendant’s challenge is without merit (see People v Battles, 16 NY3d 54, 59 , cert denied ___ US ___ [Oct. 3, 2011]; People v Rawlins, 10 NY3d 136, 158 , cert denied sub nom. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Woodardgreen1 sentence2012However, defendant failed to provide the requisite notice of this challenge to the Attorney General (see CPLR 1012 [b] [1], [3]; Executive Law § 71 [1], [3]; People v Woodard, 83 AD3d 1440, 1442 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 803 [2011]). | 1 | 1 |
Lapkin v. Lapkingreen1 sentence2012In any event, respondent waived any objection to the notice requirements by appearing and defending against the contempt application on the merits (see Franklin v Leff, 192 AD2d 328 [1993], lv dismissed 82 NY2d 749 [1993]; see also Lapkin v Lapkin, 224 AD2d 199, 200 [1996]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Evansgreen1 sentence2012He further failed to preserve the issue for our review by raising it before County Court, and we decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction (see People v Schaurer, 32 AD3d 1241 [2006]; People v Evans, 27 AD3d 905, 906 [2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 847 [2006]). | 1 | 1 |
| Regan v. Town of North Hempsteadgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Holmes v. Town of Oyster Baygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Salaam v. Goordgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Martin v. Goordgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Tumminia v. Goordgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Bakolasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Layaou v. Xerox Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Patrowich v. Chemical Bankgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Nassau Insurance v. Murraygreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Smithgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Lawsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Megliogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Cadiz v. Goordgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Lancastergreen | 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. Rivera
green
2 sentences2011“Defendant’s constitutional challenge [in his main brief] to the persistent felony offender statute is not properly before us, inasmuch as there is no indication in the record that the Attorney General was given the requisite notice of that challenge” (People v Perez, 67 AD3d 1324, 1326 , lv denied 13 NY3d 941 ; see generally People v Brown, 64 AD3d 611 ; People v Mays, 54 AD3d 778 , lv denied 11 NY3d 927 ). 2011“Defendant’s constitutional challenge [in his main brief] to the persistent felony offender statute is not properly before us, inasmuch as there is no indication in the record that the At torney General was given the requisite notice of that challenge” (People v Perez, 67 AD3d 1324, 1326 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 941 [2010]; see generally People v Brown, 64 AD3d 611 [2009]; People v Mays, 54 AD3d 778 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 927 [2009]). | 5 | 2010–2011 |
People v. Perkins
green
2 sentences2011Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime of burglary in the first degree as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 ), we reject defendant’s contention that the verdict with respect to the counts of the indictment charging that crime is against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 ). -3- 392 KA 04-01470 Defendant’s constitutional challenge to the persistent felony offender statute is not properly before us inasmuch as there is no indication in the record that the Attorney General was given the requisite notice of t 2011Defendant’s constitutional challenge to the persistent felony offender statute is not properly before us inasmuch as there is no indication in the record that the Attorney General was given the requisite notice of that challenge (see Executive Law § 71 [3]; People v Schaurer, 32 AD3d 1241 [2006]). | 4 | 2009–2012 |
Town of Somerset v. Perry
green
2 sentences2015While we agree with the Village that the notice of claim requirements of CPLR 9802 apply to all actions, including actions in equity (see Genesee Brewing Co. v Village of Sodus Point, 126 Misc 2d 827, 831-833 [1984], affd for reasons stated 115 AD2d 313 [1985]; see also Mendik v Incorporated Vil. of Lattingtown, 76 AD3d 616 , 618 [2010]; Greco v Incorporated Vil. of Freeport, 223 AD2d 674, 674 [1996]), we agree with the Town that an exception to the notice of claim requirement exists where “compliance would prevent obtaining the relief required because of the immediacy [of] the relief warrante 2015While we agree with the Village that the notice of claim requirements of CPLR 9802 apply to all actions, including actions in equity (see Genesee Brewing Co. v Village of Sodus Point, 126 Misc 2d 827, 831-833 [1984], affd for reasons stated 115 AD2d 313 [1985]; see also Mendik v Incorporated Vil. of Lattingtown, 76 AD3d 616 , 618 [2010]; Greco v Incorporated Vil. of Freeport, 223 AD2d 674, 674 [1996]), we agree with the Town that an exception to the notice of claim requirement exists where “compliance would prevent obtaining the relief required because of the immediacy [of] the relief warrante | 3 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Perez
green
2 sentences2011In any event, that contention is not preserved for our review (see People v Perez, 67 AD3d 1324, 1326 , lv denied 13 NY3d 941 ; People v Phillips, 56 AD3d 1168 , lv denied 11 NY3d 928 ), and it is without merit (see People v Porto, 16 NY3d 93, 102 ; see generally People v Quinones, 12 NY3d 116, 122-131 , cert denied ___ US ___, 130 S Ct 104 ; People v Rivera, 5 NY3d 61, 66-68 , cert denied 546 US 984 ). 2011In any event, that contention is not preserved for our review (see People v Perez, 67 AD3d 1324, 1326 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 941 [2010]; People v Phillips, 56 AD3d 1168 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 928 [2009]), and it is without merit (see People v Porto, 16 NY3d 93, 102 [2010]; see generally People v Quinones, 12 NY3d 116, 122-131 [2009], cert denied 558 US —, 130 S Ct 104 [2009]; People v Rivera, 5 NY3d 61, 66-68 [2005], cert denied 546 US 984 [2005]). | 3 | 2009–2011 |
People v. Anthony
green
2 sentences2011Defendant’s constitutional challenge to the persistent felony offender statute is unpreserved for our review (see People v Besser, 96 NY2d 136, 148 [2001]; People v Watkins, 17 AD3d 1083, 1084 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 771 [2005]), and “ ‘there is no indication in the record that the Attorney General was given the requisite notice of that challenge’ ” (People v Bastian, 83 AD3d 1468, 1469-1470 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 813 [2011]). 2011Defendant’s constitutional challenge to the persistent felony offender statute is unpreserved for our review (see People v Besser, 96 NY2d 136, 148 ; People v Watkins, 17 AD3d 1083, 1084 , lv denied 5 NY3d 771 ), and “ ‘there is no indication in the record that the Attorney General was given the requisite notice of that challenge’ ” (People v Bastian, 83 AD3d 1468, 1469-1470 , lv denied 17 NY3d 813 ). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
People v. Mays
green
2 sentences2011“Defendant’s constitutional challenge [in his main brief] to the persistent felony offender statute is not properly before us, inasmuch as there is no indication in the record that the Attorney General was given the requisite notice of that challenge” (People v Perez, 67 AD3d 1324, 1326 , lv denied 13 NY3d 941 ; see generally People v Brown, 64 AD3d 611 ; People v Mays, 54 AD3d 778 , lv denied 11 NY3d 927 ). 2011“Defendant’s constitutional challenge [in his main brief] to the persistent felony offender statute is not properly before us, inasmuch as there is no indication in the record that the At torney General was given the requisite notice of that challenge” (People v Perez, 67 AD3d 1324, 1326 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 941 [2010]; see generally People v Brown, 64 AD3d 611 [2009]; People v Mays, 54 AD3d 778 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 927 [2009]). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
People v. McMath
green
2 sentences2011“Defendant’s constitutional challenge [in his main brief] to the persistent felony offender statute is not properly before us, inasmuch as there is no indication in the record that the Attorney General was given the requisite notice of that challenge” (People v Perez, 67 AD3d 1324, 1326 , lv denied 13 NY3d 941 ; see generally People v Brown, 64 AD3d 611 ; People v Mays, 54 AD3d 778 , lv denied 11 NY3d 927 ). 2011“Defendant’s constitutional challenge [in his main brief] to the persistent felony offender statute is not properly before us, inasmuch as there is no indication in the record that the At torney General was given the requisite notice of that challenge” (People v Perez, 67 AD3d 1324, 1326 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 941 [2010]; see generally People v Brown, 64 AD3d 611 [2009]; People v Mays, 54 AD3d 778 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 927 [2009]). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
People v. Wright
green
2 sentences2011Defendant’s constitutional challenge to the persistent felony offender statute is unpreserved for our review (see People v Besser, 96 NY2d 136, 148 [2001]; People v Watkins, 17 AD3d 1083, 1084 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 771 [2005]), and “ ‘there is no indication in the record that the Attorney General was given the requisite notice of that challenge’ ” (People v Bastian, 83 AD3d 1468, 1469-1470 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 813 [2011]). 2011Defendant’s constitutional challenge to the persistent felony offender statute is unpreserved for our review (see People v Besser, 96 NY2d 136, 148 ; People v Watkins, 17 AD3d 1083, 1084 , lv denied 5 NY3d 771 ), and “ ‘there is no indication in the record that the Attorney General was given the requisite notice of that challenge’ ” (People v Bastian, 83 AD3d 1468, 1469-1470 , lv denied 17 NY3d 813 ). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
People v. Wester
green
1 sentence2012However, defendant failed to provide the requisite notice of this challenge to the Attorney General (see CPLR 1012 [b] [1], [3]; Executive Law § 71 [1], [3]; People v Woodard, 83 AD3d 1440, 1442 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 803 [2011]). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
People v. DuQUIN
green
1 sentence2012He further failed to preserve the issue for our review by raising it before County Court, and we decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction (see People v Schaurer, 32 AD3d 1241 [2006]; People v Evans, 27 AD3d 905, 906 [2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 847 [2006]). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Franklin v. Leff
neutral
1 sentence2012In any event, respondent waived any objection to the notice requirements by appearing and defending against the contempt application on the merits (see Franklin v Leff, 192 AD2d 328 [1993], lv dismissed 82 NY2d 749 [1993]; see also Lapkin v Lapkin, 224 AD2d 199, 200 [1996]). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Amabile v. City of Buffalo green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Chavez v. Medical Assurance Co. green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| People v. Danielson green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Poirier v. City of Schenectady
green
1 sentence2011Where, as here, a municipality has enacted a prior written notice law (see Code of Town of Oyster Bay § 160-1), it cannot be held liable absent proof of the requisite notice or an exception to that requirement (see Amabile v City of Buffalo, 93 NY2d 471 [1999]; Poirier v City of Schenectady, 85 NY2d 310 [1995]; Regan v Town of N. Hempstead, 66 AD3d 863, 864 [2009]). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| People v. Bleakley green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Williams v. City of New York neutral | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Scantlebury v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Di Bella v. United States green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| People v. Iannelli green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| People v. O'Rama green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| In re the Arbitration between Country-Wide Insurance & Eun Kyu Park green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Perez-Sanchez v. United States green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Kretschmann v. Board of Education of the Corning Painted Post School District green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Morrissey v. Brewer green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Keator v. Keator green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Wurttembergische Feuerversicherung AG. v. Pan Atlantic Group, Inc. green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Braverman v. City of White Plains green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Mastandrea v. State neutral | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Budgar v. State green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Barreca v. Barreca green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Bradbury v. Bliss neutral | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Kingsbridge Heights Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, Inc. v. Daines green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| People v. Mayfield neutral | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| People ex rel. Stage v. Sherwood neutral | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Stevens Plumbing Supply Co. v. Bi-County Plumbing & Heating Co. green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Kamienska v. County of Westchester green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.
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.