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.
23 New York opinions name it 6 courts 1968–2025 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Gonzalesgreen2 sentences2023Since Miller, that trend has continued, as many of the states that “adhered to the rule of exclusion” (id. at 549 n 2) have either abandoned it or else never fully excluded all evidence of a victim’s character on the first aggressor question (compare id. with State v Dunson, 433 NW2d 676, 680 [Iowa 1988], overruled with respect to specific acts evidence State v Williams, 929 NW2d 621, 636 [Iowa 2019]; Com. v Davis, 14 SW3d 9, 14 [1999]; State v Lee, 331 So2d 455, 460 [La 1975]; Thomas v State, 301 Md 294, 307 [1984]; State v Keaton, 258 Minn 359, 367 [1960]; State v Gonzales, 153 SW3d 311, 313 2023Since Miller, that trend has continued, as many of the states that “adhered to the rule of exclusion” (id. at 549 n 2) have either abandoned it or else never fully excluded all evidence of a victim’s character on the first aggressor question (compare id. with State v Dunson, 433 NW2d 676, 680 [Iowa 1988], overruled with respect to specific acts evidence State v Williams, 929 NW2d 621, 636 [Iowa 2019]; Com. v Davis, 14 SW3d 9, 14 [1999]; State v Lee, 331 So2d 455, 460 [La 1975]; Thomas v State, 301 Md 294, 307 [1984]; State v Keaton, 258 Minn 359, 367 [1960]; State v Gonzales, 153 SW3d 311, 313 | 2 | 2 |
State v. Dunsongreen2 sentences2023Since Miller, that trend has continued, as many of the states that “adhered to the rule of exclusion” (id. at 549 n 2) have either abandoned it or else never fully excluded all evidence of a victim’s character on the first aggressor question (compare id. with State v Dunson, 433 NW2d 676, 680 [Iowa 1988], overruled with respect to specific acts evidence State v Williams, 929 NW2d 621, 636 [Iowa 2019]; Com. v Davis, 14 SW3d 9, 14 [1999]; State v Lee, 331 So2d 455, 460 [La 1975]; Thomas v State, 301 Md 294, 307 [1984]; State v Keaton, 258 Minn 359, 367 [1960]; State v Gonzales, 153 SW3d 311, 313 2023Since Miller, that trend has continued, as many of the states that “adhered to the rule of exclusion” (id. at 549 n 2) have either abandoned it or else never fully excluded all evidence of a victim’s character on the first aggressor question (compare id. with State v Dunson, 433 NW2d 676, 680 [Iowa 1988], overruled with respect to specific acts evidence State v Williams, 929 NW2d 621, 636 [Iowa 2019]; Com. v Davis, 14 SW3d 9, 14 [1999]; State v Lee, 331 So2d 455, 460 [La 1975]; Thomas v State, 301 Md 294, 307 [1984]; State v Keaton, 258 Minn 359, 367 [1960]; State v Gonzales, 153 SW3d 311, 313 | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Davisgreen2 sentences2023Since Miller, that trend has continued, as many of the states that “adhered to the rule of exclusion” (id. at 549 n 2) have either abandoned it or else never fully excluded all evidence of a victim’s character on the first aggressor question (compare id. with State v Dunson, 433 NW2d 676, 680 [Iowa 1988], overruled with respect to specific acts evidence State v Williams, 929 NW2d 621, 636 [Iowa 2019]; Com. v Davis, 14 SW3d 9, 14 [1999]; State v Lee, 331 So2d 455, 460 [La 1975]; Thomas v State, 301 Md 294, 307 [1984]; State v Keaton, 258 Minn 359, 367 [1960]; State v Gonzales, 153 SW3d 311, 313 2023Since Miller, that trend has continued, as many of the states that “adhered to the rule of exclusion” (id. at 549 n 2) have either abandoned it or else never fully excluded all evidence of a victim’s character on the first aggressor question (compare id. with State v Dunson, 433 NW2d 676, 680 [Iowa 1988], overruled with respect to specific acts evidence State v Williams, 929 NW2d 621, 636 [Iowa 2019]; Com. v Davis, 14 SW3d 9, 14 [1999]; State v Lee, 331 So2d 455, 460 [La 1975]; Thomas v State, 301 Md 294, 307 [1984]; State v Keaton, 258 Minn 359, 367 [1960]; State v Gonzales, 153 SW3d 311, 313 | 2 | 2 |
State of Iowa v. Antoine Tyree Williamsgreen2 sentences2023Since Miller, that trend has continued, as many of the states that “adhered to the rule of exclusion” (id. at 549 n 2) have either abandoned it or else never fully excluded all evidence of a victim’s character on the first aggressor question (compare id. with State v Dunson, 433 NW2d 676, 680 [Iowa 1988], overruled with respect to specific acts evidence State v Williams, 929 NW2d 621, 636 [Iowa 2019]; Com. v Davis, 14 SW3d 9, 14 [1999]; State v Lee, 331 So2d 455, 460 [La 1975]; Thomas v State, 301 Md 294, 307 [1984]; State v Keaton, 258 Minn 359, 367 [1960]; State v Gonzales, 153 SW3d 311, 313 2023Since Miller, that trend has continued, as many of the states that “adhered to the rule of exclusion” (id. at 549 n 2) have either abandoned it or else never fully excluded all evidence of a victim’s character on the first aggressor question (compare id. with State v Dunson, 433 NW2d 676, 680 [Iowa 1988], overruled with respect to specific acts evidence State v Williams, 929 NW2d 621, 636 [Iowa 2019]; Com. v Davis, 14 SW3d 9, 14 [1999]; State v Lee, 331 So2d 455, 460 [La 1975]; Thomas v State, 301 Md 294, 307 [1984]; State v Keaton, 258 Minn 359, 367 [1960]; State v Gonzales, 153 SW3d 311, 313 | 2 | 2 |
In re Robert S.green2 sentences2023Robert S., 52 NY2d at 1052 [Fuchsberg, J., dissenting]; Williams v Lord, 996 F2d 1481, 1485 [2d Cir 1993] [Cardamone, J., concurring]). 2023Robert S., 52 NY2d at 1052 [Fuchsberg, J., dissenting]; Williams v Lord, 996 F2d 1481, 1485 [2d Cir 1993] [Cardamone, J., concurring]). | 2 | 2 |
In re the Acquisition of Easements by Albany County Airport Authoritygreen2 sentences2013(Buhrmaster) ( 265 AD2d 720, 721 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 758 [2000]), in which an appraiser used a “functional utility adjustment” to evaluate the impact of an avigation easement on property near an airport and—because of a lack of local comparable sales involving such easements—relied on his experience in valuing out-of-area parcels encumbered by such easements rather than on a standard sales comparison. 2013(Buhrmaster) ( 265 AD2d 720, 721 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 758 [2000]), in which an appraiser used a “functional utility adjustment” to evaluate the impact of an avigation easement on property near an airport and—because of a lack of local comparable sales involving such easements—relied on his experience in valuing out-of-area parcels encumbered by such easements rather than on a standard sales comparison. | 2 | 2 |
Kalouche v. Vicentegreen1 sentence2022We agree with plaintiff, however, that Lynch and Yuna failed to meet their initial burdens on their respective motions and cross motions ( see Craig v Haynos , 57 AD3d 1503, 1503 [4th Dept 2008]; Owsian v Cobo , 45 AD3d 1368, 1369 [4th Dept 2007]; see also McMorrow v Trimper , 149 AD2d 971, 972-973 [4th Dept 1989], affd for the reasons stated 74 NY2d 830 [1989]; Burg v Mosey , 126 AD3d 1522, 1523 [4th Dept 2015]). | 1 | 1 |
Ortiz v. Vernenkargreen1 sentence2022Further, Miller established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for lack of informed consent insofar as asserted against him through the affirmation of his expert ( see Public Health Law § 2805-d[2]; Connelly v Warner , 248 AD2d 941 ; see also Ortiz v Vernenkar , 101 AD3d 637 ). | 1 | 1 |
McMorrow v. Trimpergreen1 sentence2022We agree with plaintiff, however, that Lynch and Yuna failed to meet their initial burdens on their respective motions and cross motions ( see Craig v Haynos , 57 AD3d 1503, 1503 [4th Dept 2008]; Owsian v Cobo , 45 AD3d 1368, 1369 [4th Dept 2007]; see also McMorrow v Trimper , 149 AD2d 971, 972-973 [4th Dept 1989], affd for the reasons stated 74 NY2d 830 [1989]; Burg v Mosey , 126 AD3d 1522, 1523 [4th Dept 2015]). | 1 | 1 |
Owsian v. Cobogreen1 sentence2022We agree with plaintiff, however, that Lynch and Yuna failed to meet their initial burdens on their respective motions and cross motions ( see Craig v Haynos , 57 AD3d 1503, 1503 [4th Dept 2008]; Owsian v Cobo , 45 AD3d 1368, 1369 [4th Dept 2007]; see also McMorrow v Trimper , 149 AD2d 971, 972-973 [4th Dept 1989], affd for the reasons stated 74 NY2d 830 [1989]; Burg v Mosey , 126 AD3d 1522, 1523 [4th Dept 2015]). | 1 | 1 |
Burg v. Moseygreen1 sentence2022We agree with plaintiff, however, that Lynch and Yuna failed to meet their initial burdens on their respective motions and cross motions ( see Craig v Haynos , 57 AD3d 1503, 1503 [4th Dept 2008]; Owsian v Cobo , 45 AD3d 1368, 1369 [4th Dept 2007]; see also McMorrow v Trimper , 149 AD2d 971, 972-973 [4th Dept 1989], affd for the reasons stated 74 NY2d 830 [1989]; Burg v Mosey , 126 AD3d 1522, 1523 [4th Dept 2015]). | 1 | 1 |
McMorrow v. Trimpergreen1 sentence2022We agree with plaintiff, however, that Lynch and Yuna failed to meet their initial burdens on their respective motions and cross motions ( see Craig v Haynos , 57 AD3d 1503, 1503 [4th Dept 2008]; Owsian v Cobo , 45 AD3d 1368, 1369 [4th Dept 2007]; see also McMorrow v Trimper , 149 AD2d 971, 972-973 [4th Dept 1989], affd for the reasons stated 74 NY2d 830 [1989]; Burg v Mosey , 126 AD3d 1522, 1523 [4th Dept 2015]). | 1 | 1 |
Montgomery v. Louisianagreen2 sentences2016This format is consistent with Montgomery v Louisiana, which clarifies that a state “may remedy a Miller violation by permitting juvenile homicide offenders to be considered for parole, rather than by resentencing them” (577 US at —, 136 S Ct at 736 ). . 2016This format is consistent with Montgomery v Louisiana, which clarifies that a state “may remedy a Miller violation by permitting juvenile homicide offenders to be considered for parole, rather than by resentencing them” (577 US at —, 136 S Ct at 736 ). . | 1 | 1 |
Duell v. Condongreen2 sentences2002As recognized by the Court of Appeals in Matter of Duell v Condon ( 84 NY2d 773, 783 [1995]), a case where the Legislature did not expressly state that the statute was to be applied retroactively, “statutes that are remedial in nature may be applied retrospectively.” (Citation omitted.) Notwith standing Miller’s claim (see letter submission, June 19, 2002, Thomas E. 2002Healy, Esq.) that attempts, in out of state cases, to “level the playing field” or of “equalization of bargaining power,” does not serve a broad public purpose, the Court in Matter of Duell ( 84 NY2d at 783 ) applied the statute retroactively to leases executed prior to the effective date of the statute since “[t]he remedial nature of the Legislature’s action to equalize the power of landlords and tenants is evident from both the language of the statute as well as historical documents (see, Bill Jacket, L 1966, ch 286).” Additionally, as held in Goldfarb v Goldfarb ( 86 AD2d 459, 461 [2d Dept | 1 | 1 |
Goldfarb v. Goldfarbgreen1 sentence2002Healy, Esq.) that attempts, in out of state cases, to “level the playing field” or of “equalization of bargaining power,” does not serve a broad public purpose, the Court in Matter of Duell ( 84 NY2d at 783 ) applied the statute retroactively to leases executed prior to the effective date of the statute since “[t]he remedial nature of the Legislature’s action to equalize the power of landlords and tenants is evident from both the language of the statute as well as historical documents (see, Bill Jacket, L 1966, ch 286).” Additionally, as held in Goldfarb v Goldfarb ( 86 AD2d 459, 461 [2d Dept | 1 | 1 |
| Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonvillegreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jones v. Mississippi
green
2 sentences2025More recently, the Supreme Court stated, with respect the court's consideration of the Miller factors: "[A] sentencer cannot avoid considering the defendant's youth if the sentencer has discretion to consider that mitigating factor." Jones v. Mississippi , 593 U.S. 98 , 115, 141 S. Ct. [*4]1307, 1319—20 (2021). 2025More recently, the Supreme Court stated, with respect the court's consideration of the Miller factors: "[A] sentencer cannot avoid considering the defendant's youth if the sentencer has discretion to consider that mitigating factor." Jones v. Mississippi , 593 U.S. 98 , 115, 141 S. Ct. [*4]1307, 1319—20 (2021). | 2 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Lewchuk
green
2 sentences2023Since Miller, that trend has continued, as many of the states that “adhered to the rule of exclusion” (id. at 549 n 2) have either abandoned it or else never fully excluded all evidence of a victim’s character on the first aggressor question (compare id. with State v Dunson, 433 NW2d 676, 680 [Iowa 1988], overruled with respect to specific acts evidence State v Williams, 929 NW2d 621, 636 [Iowa 2019]; Com. v Davis, 14 SW3d 9, 14 [1999]; State v Lee, 331 So2d 455, 460 [La 1975]; Thomas v State, 301 Md 294, 307 [1984]; State v Keaton, 258 Minn 359, 367 [1960]; State v Gonzales, 153 SW3d 311, 313 2023Since Miller, that trend has continued, as many of the states that “adhered to the rule of exclusion” (id. at 549 n 2) have either abandoned it or else never fully excluded all evidence of a victim’s character on the first aggressor question (compare id. with State v Dunson, 433 NW2d 676, 680 [Iowa 1988], overruled with respect to specific acts evidence State v Williams, 929 NW2d 621, 636 [Iowa 2019]; Com. v Davis, 14 SW3d 9, 14 [1999]; State v Lee, 331 So2d 455, 460 [La 1975]; Thomas v State, 301 Md 294, 307 [1984]; State v Keaton, 258 Minn 359, 367 [1960]; State v Gonzales, 153 SW3d 311, 313 | 2 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Miller
green
2 sentences2023Since Miller, that trend has continued, as many of the states that “adhered to the rule of exclusion” (id. at 549 n 2) have either abandoned it or else never fully excluded all evidence of a victim’s character on the first aggressor question (compare id. with State v Dunson, 433 NW2d 676, 680 [Iowa 1988], overruled with respect to specific acts evidence State v Williams, 929 NW2d 621, 636 [Iowa 2019]; Com. v Davis, 14 SW3d 9, 14 [1999]; State v Lee, 331 So2d 455, 460 [La 1975]; Thomas v State, 301 Md 294, 307 [1984]; State v Keaton, 258 Minn 359, 367 [1960]; State v Gonzales, 153 SW3d 311, 313 2023Since Miller, that trend has continued, as many of the states that “adhered to the rule of exclusion” (id. at 549 n 2) have either abandoned it or else never fully excluded all evidence of a victim’s character on the first aggressor question (compare id. with State v Dunson, 433 NW2d 676, 680 [Iowa 1988], overruled with respect to specific acts evidence State v Williams, 929 NW2d 621, 636 [Iowa 2019]; Com. v Davis, 14 SW3d 9, 14 [1999]; State v Lee, 331 So2d 455, 460 [La 1975]; Thomas v State, 301 Md 294, 307 [1984]; State v Keaton, 258 Minn 359, 367 [1960]; State v Gonzales, 153 SW3d 311, 313 | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Larcy v. Kamler
green
1 sentence2022Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court properly disregarded the theory advanced by the plaintiff's expert that Miller was negligent in treating the plaintiff with Zyvox, as that theory constituted a new theory not discernable from the pleadings, and, therefore, was improperly raised for the first time in opposition to Miller's motion ( see Larcy v Kamler , 185 AD3d 564, 566 ). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Ravnikar v. Skyline Credit-Ride, Inc.
green
1 sentence2022The plaintiff failed to set forth a reasonable justification for his failure to present the alleged new facts in opposition to the prior motions ( see CPLR 2221[e]; Ravnikar v Skyline Credit-Ride, Inc. , 79 AD3d 1118, 1120 ). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Connelly v. Warner
green
1 sentence2022Further, Miller established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for lack of informed consent insofar as asserted against him through the affirmation of his expert ( see Public Health Law § 2805-d[2]; Connelly v Warner , 248 AD2d 941 ; see also Ortiz v Vernenkar , 101 AD3d 637 ). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Trombetta v. Cathone
green
1 sentence2015Condominium, 96 AD3d 703 [2012]; Trombetta v Cathone, 59 AD3d 526 [2009]). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Boorstein v. 1261 48th Street Condominium
green
1 sentence2015Condominium, 96 AD3d 703 [2012]; Trombetta v Cathone, 59 AD3d 526 [2009]). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Browarnik
green
1 sentence2005Co., 228 AD2d 468 [1996]; Padela v Rosen & Weidberg, 200 AD2d 722 [1994]; Carel Almo Serv. v Weisskopf, 42 AD2d 953 [1973]), the court denies Miller’s motion for reconsolidation. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Padela v. Rosen
green
1 sentence2005Co., 228 AD2d 468 [1996]; Padela v Rosen & Weidberg, 200 AD2d 722 [1994]; Carel Almo Serv. v Weisskopf, 42 AD2d 953 [1973]), the court denies Miller’s motion for reconsolidation. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Dawson v. Pavarini Construction Co.
neutral
1 sentence2005Co., 228 AD2d 468 [1996]; Padela v Rosen & Weidberg, 200 AD2d 722 [1994]; Carel Almo Serv. v Weisskopf, 42 AD2d 953 [1973]), the court denies Miller’s motion for reconsolidation. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Leonetti v. Das
green
2 sentences2005Generally, the issue whether the common carrier breached its duty in the circumstances is one for the jury (Gross, 256 AD2d at 129 ). 2005Generally, the issue whether the common carrier breached its duty in the circumstances is one for the jury (Gross, 256 AD2d at 129 ). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v. A. C. Dutton Lumber Co.
green
1 sentence1995Co., 67 NY2d 138 ), which does not require a reasonable excuse, we see no basis to disturb Supreme Court’s exercise of its discretion to vacate the default. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Vincent v. Industries
neutral
1 sentence1993Supreme Court properly denied Miller’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s causes of action alleging common-law negligence and violation of Labor Law § 200 because factual issues are presented concerning whether Miller had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition (see, Vincent v Dresser Indus., 172 AD2d 1033 , lv denied 78 NY2d 864 ). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
People v. Ortiz
green
1 sentence1992Under these circumstances, we find that the court below did not err in finding that counsel’s dual loyalty to his two clients created a conflict of interest which impacted upon the conduct of the defense, thereby depriving defendant of the effective assistance of counsel, and the verdict was properly set aside (see, People v Ortiz, supra). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Sequoia Books, Inc. v. McDonald green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Town of Clarence v. Suburban Trailer Sales, Inc. neutral | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Fedele v. Baruch neutral | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| New York Trap Rock Corp. v. Clarkstown neutral | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance v. Abrams green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Town of North Hempstead v. Levitt & Sons, Inc. neutral | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| New York Trap Rock Corp. v. Town of Clarkstown neutral | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| United States v. 244.48 Acres of Land neutral | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| Fitzgerald v. State neutral | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| In re the City of New York neutral | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| Fitzgerald v. State neutral | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| A Book Named \John Cleland's Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure\" v. Attorney General of Massachusetts" green | 1 | 1973–1973 |
| New York Feed Co. v. Leary green | 1 | 1973–1973 |
| Cinco v. City of New York green | 1 | 1968–1968 |
| United States v. Virginia Electric & Power Co. green | 1 | 1968–1968 |
| State v. Carswell neutral | 1 | 1968–1968 |
| Tharp v. Urban Renewal & Community Development Agency green | 1 | 1968–1968 |
| Cleveland v. Carcione green | 1 | 1968–1968 |
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.