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.
21 New York opinions name it 4 courts 1957–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. O'Ramagreen2 sentences2018The defendant correctly contends that the Supreme Court's handling of two jury notes failed to comply with CPL 310.30, in accordance with the procedure outlined in People v O'Rama ( 78 NY2d 270 ). "[W]henever a substantive written jury communication is received by the Judge, it should be marked as a court exhibit and, before the jury is recalled to the courtroom, read into the record in the presence of counsel" ( id. at 277-278 ; see People v Webster, 153 AD3d 733 ; People v Gough, 142 AD3d 673, 674 ). " After the contents of the inquiry are placed on the record, counsel should be afforded a f 2018The defendant correctly contends that the Supreme Court's handling of two jury notes failed to comply with CPL 310.30, in accordance with the procedure outlined in People v O'Rama ( 78 NY2d 270 ). "[W]henever a substantive written jury communication is received by the Judge, it should be marked as a court exhibit and, before the jury is recalled to the courtroom, read into the record in the presence of counsel" ( id. at 277-278 ; see People v Webster, 153 AD3d 733 ; People v Gough, 142 AD3d 673, 674 ). " After the contents of the inquiry are placed on the record, counsel should be afforded a f | 2 | 8 |
People v. Norfortgreen2 sentences2013“Specifically, the Court of Appeals has held that ‘whenever a substantive written jury communication is received by the Judge,’ it should be ‘read into the record in the presence of counsel,’ and that, ‘[a]fter the contents of the inquiry are placed on the record, counsel should be afforded a full opportunity to suggest appropriate responses’ ” (People v Powell, 101 AD3d at 759, quoting People v O’Rama, 78 NY2d at 277-278 ). 2013“Specifically, the Court of Appeals has held that ‘whenever a substantive written jury communication is received by the Judge,’ it should be ‘read into the record in the presence of counsel,’ and that, ‘[a]fter the contents of the inquiry are placed on the record, counsel should be afforded a full opportunity to suggest appropriate responses’ ” (People v Powell, 101 AD3d at 759, quoting People v O’Rama, 78 NY2d at 277-278 ). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Gillespiegreen2 sentences2018The defendant correctly contends that the Supreme Court's handling of two jury notes failed to comply with CPL 310.30, in accordance with the procedure outlined in People v O'Rama ( 78 NY2d 270 ). "[W]henever a substantive written jury communication is received by the Judge, it should be marked as a court exhibit and, before the jury is recalled to the courtroom, read into the record in the presence of counsel" ( id. at 277-278 ; see People v Webster, 153 AD3d 733 ; People v Gough, 142 AD3d 673, 674 ). " After the contents of the inquiry are placed on the record, counsel should be afforded a f 2017“The Court of Appeals held that ‘whenever a substantive written jury communication is received by the Judge, it should be marked as a court exhibit and, before the jury is recalled to the courtroom, read into the record in the presence of counsel’ ” (People v Gough, 142 AD3d 673, 674 [2016], quoting People v O’Rama, 78 NY2d at 277-278 ). “ ‘After the contents of the inquiry are placed on the record, counsel should be afforded a full opportunity to suggest appropriate responses. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Petgengreen1 sentence2020Given that defendant's waiver of immunity was made knowingly and intelligently ( see People v Mane , 49 AD3d 964, 965-966 [2008], lv dismissed 10 NY3d 961 [2008]), we are unpersuaded by his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel ( see People v Petgen , 92 AD2d 693, 693-694 [1983]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Manegreen1 sentence2020Given that defendant's waiver of immunity was made knowingly and intelligently ( see People v Mane , 49 AD3d 964, 965-966 [2008], lv dismissed 10 NY3d 961 [2008]), we are unpersuaded by his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel ( see People v Petgen , 92 AD2d 693, 693-694 [1983]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Ortizgreen1 sentence2018Additionally, neither the ensuing discussion at the time of sentencing nor the written waiver of appeal that defendant ultimately executed demonstrates that defendant understood the contents of the waiver, the nature of the right being forfeited or the consequences thereof ( see People v Haenelt , 161 AD3d 1489 , 1489 [2018]; People v Ortiz , 153 AD3d 1049, 1049 [2017]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Webstergreen1 sentence2018The defendant correctly contends that the Supreme Court's handling of two jury notes failed to comply with CPL 310.30, in accordance with the procedure outlined in People v O'Rama ( 78 NY2d 270 ). "[W]henever a substantive written jury communication is received by the Judge, it should be marked as a court exhibit and, before the jury is recalled to the courtroom, read into the record in the presence of counsel" ( id. at 277-278 ; see People v Webster, 153 AD3d 733 ; People v Gough, 142 AD3d 673, 674 ). " After the contents of the inquiry are placed on the record, counsel should be afforded a f | 1 | 1 |
People v. Kisoongreen1 sentence2010Finally, when the jury is returned to the courtroom, the communication should be read in open court so that the individual jurors can correct any inaccuracies in the transcription of the inquiry and, in cases where the communication was sent by an individual juror, the rest of the jury panel can appreciate the purpose of the court’s response and the context in which it is being made.” In O’Rama and its progeny, the Court of Appeals has made it abundantly clear that it was not the Court’s intention “to mandate adherence to a rigid set of procedures, but rather to delineate a set of guidelines c | 1 | 1 |
People v. Whalengreen1 sentence2006With regard to an aided card whose existence was disputed, the court delivered an adverse inference charge to which defendant did not object (see People v Whalen, 59 NY2d 273, 280 [1983]), and we decline to review his unpreserved challenge to the contents of that instruction in the interest of justice. | 1 | 1 |
Santos v. Stategreen1 sentence2003In short, substantial compliance with section 11 is what is required” (Heisler v State of New York, 78 AD2d 767, 767 ; see Santos v State of New York, 291 AD2d 851 ; Ferrugia v State of New York, 237 AD2d 858, 859 ). | 1 | 1 |
Romanian American Interests, Inc. v. Schergreen2 sentences1986Interests v Scher, supra) limited the plaintiffs recovery merely to the contents of the bar and grill. 1986Interests v Scher, supra) was quite clear in providing that the plaintiffs only valid cause of action, i.e., the fifth cause of action, was one to recover for damages "to the contents of the bar” (Romanian Am. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Harvey Chalmers & Son, Inc. v. State
green
2 sentences2003The requirements regarding the contents of the claim, as set forth in Court of Claims Act § 11, “should receive a reasonable construction and not one that unjustly deprives a suitor of the right to recover” (Chalmers & Son v State of New York, 271 App Div 699 , 701, affd 297 NY 690 ). 1965(Chalmers & Son v. State of New York, 271 App. Div. 699 , affd. 297 N. Y. 690 ; Emanuele v. State of New York, 43 Misc 2d 135 ; Fraser v. State of New York, 26 Misc 2d 992 .) The court holds that the notice of intention as filed contains all the items required to be stated in a claim under the provisions of section 11 of the Court of Claims Act and constitutes substantial compliance with that section so far as the contents of a claim are concerned. | 2 | 1965–2003 |
People v. Dixon
green
1 sentence2019After conferring with counsel, defendant executed a written waiver in open court and, in response to County Court's questioning, assured the court that he had been afforded sufficient time to review the waiver with counsel, understood the contents of the waiver and had no questions relative thereto ( see People v Sahler , 168 AD3d 1313 , 1314 [2019]; People v Mateo , 166 AD3d 1246 , 1247 [2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1207 [2019]; People v Garcia , 164 AD3d 958 , 958 [2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1003 [2018]). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
LALKA, REBECCA L. v. ACA INSURANCE COMPANY
green
1 sentence2018Co. ( 128 AD3d 1508 [4th Dept 2015]), responded by providing plaintiff with the contents of the claim file up until the date of commencement of this action. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Starling
green
1 sentence2008But in People v Starling ( 85 NY2d 509 [1995]), the trial court did not mark the note as an exhibit and did not give counsel a full opportunity to suggest appropriate responses. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
People v. Brister
green
1 sentence2006Were we to review this claim, we would find that the charge conveyed the proper standards, including the permissive nature of an adverse inference charge (see People v Brister, 239 AD2d 513 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 938 [1997]). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Finnerty v. New York State Thruway Authority
green
1 sentence2003We do not read Finnerty v New York State Thruway Auth. ( 75 NY2d 721 ) as compelling a contrary conclusion. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Heisler v. State
green
1 sentence2003In short, substantial compliance with section 11 is what is required” (Heisler v State of New York, 78 AD2d 767, 767 ; see Santos v State of New York, 291 AD2d 851 ; Ferrugia v State of New York, 237 AD2d 858, 859 ). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Ferrugia v. State
green
1 sentence2003In short, substantial compliance with section 11 is what is required” (Heisler v State of New York, 78 AD2d 767, 767 ; see Santos v State of New York, 291 AD2d 851 ; Ferrugia v State of New York, 237 AD2d 858, 859 ). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
People v. Grant
green
2 sentences1999(People v Grant, 91 NY2d 989 [1998].) It is not necessary to discuss whether or not the contents of the violation of probation charge and the drug charges which arose at the time of the arrest on December 9, 1998 were related and whether questioning of one was exploitive of the other (People v Grant, supra) because the argument that the defendant was represented by counsel on the violation of probation charges must fail. 1999(People v Grant, 91 NY2d 989 [1998].) It is not necessary to discuss whether or not the contents of the violation of probation charge and the drug charges which arose at the time of the arrest on December 9, 1998 were related and whether questioning of one was exploitive of the other (People v Grant, supra) because the argument that the defendant was represented by counsel on the violation of probation charges must fail. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
People v. Bridges
green
1 sentence1999“When a prior charge has been disposed of by dismissal or conviction, the indelible right to counsel disappears and the defendant is capable of waiving counsel on the new charge.” (People v Bridges, 226 AD2d 471 [2d Dept 1996].) It is clear therefore that the defendant did not have counsel on the violation of probation charge when he was arrested on December 9, 1998. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
People v. Seaberg
green
1 sentence1994Therefore, the defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary (see, People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273 ; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1 ), and we have examined the defendant’s contentions regarding the denial of the branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
People v. Callahan
green
2 sentences1994The court did not inquire whether the defendant had read the typewritten waiver, whether the signature was in fact the defendant’s, and if the defendant was aware of the contents of the waiver prior to executing it (see, People v DeSimone, 80 NY2d 273 ; People v Fields, 196 AD2d 550 ). 1994Therefore, the defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary (see, People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273 ; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1 ), and we have examined the defendant’s contentions regarding the denial of the branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
People v. Fields
neutral
1 sentence1994The court did not inquire whether the defendant had read the typewritten waiver, whether the signature was in fact the defendant’s, and if the defendant was aware of the contents of the waiver prior to executing it (see, People v DeSimone, 80 NY2d 273 ; People v Fields, 196 AD2d 550 ). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Fraser v. State
neutral
1 sentence1965(Chalmers & Son v. State of New York, 271 App. Div. 699 , affd. 297 N. Y. 690 ; Emanuele v. State of New York, 43 Misc 2d 135 ; Fraser v. State of New York, 26 Misc 2d 992 .) The court holds that the notice of intention as filed contains all the items required to be stated in a claim under the provisions of section 11 of the Court of Claims Act and constitutes substantial compliance with that section so far as the contents of a claim are concerned. | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Emanuele v. State
green
1 sentence1965(Chalmers & Son v. State of New York, 271 App. Div. 699 , affd. 297 N. Y. 690 ; Emanuele v. State of New York, 43 Misc 2d 135 ; Fraser v. State of New York, 26 Misc 2d 992 .) The court holds that the notice of intention as filed contains all the items required to be stated in a claim under the provisions of section 11 of the Court of Claims Act and constitutes substantial compliance with that section so far as the contents of a claim are concerned. | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Long Island Railroad v. State
neutral
1 sentence1957Co. v. State of New York ( 188 Misc. 792 ) the Court of Claims granted a motion to strike out evidentiary matter from a claim for damages for the appropriation of claimant’s lands on the ground that such matter was improperly included under the provisions as to the contents of a claim contained in section 11 of the Court of Claims Act and section 241 of the Civil Practice Act — “ Every pleading shall contain a plain and concise statement of the material facts, without unnecessary repetition, on which the party pleading relies, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved ” — which secti | 1 | 1957–1957 |
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.