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.
20 New York opinions name it 5 courts 1892–2025 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. Ellwangergreen2 sentences1997Especially is this so in light of the fact a defendant’s right to appear and give testimony before a Grand Jury is expressly conditioned upon his 'signing and submitting to the grand jury a waiver of immunity pursuant to’ CPL 190.45 (CPL 190.50, subd 5, par [b]; see People v Ellwanger, 99 Misc 2d 807 ; People v Rodriguez, County Ct., Montgomery County, Feb. 1, 1979, White, J., affd 77 AD2d 820 , mot for lv to app den 51 NY2d 884 ), and that the defendant herein had the benefit of counsel during his Grand Jury appearance, a benefit specifically conferred by CPL 190.52 (subds 1, 2) in exchange f 1981Especially is this so in light of the fact that a defendant’s right to appear and give testimony before a Grand Jury is expressly conditioned upon his “signing and submitting to the grand jury a waiver of immunity pursuant to” CPL 190.45 (CPL 190.50, subd 5, par [b]; see People v Ellwanger, 99 Misc 2d 807 ; People v Rodriguez, County Ct., Montgomery County, Feb. 1, 1979, White, J., affd 77 AD2d 820 , mot for lv to app den 51 NY2d 884 ), and that the defendant herein had the benefit of counsel during his Grand Jury appearance, a benefit specifically conferred by CPL 190.52 (subds 1,2) in exchan | 2 | 2 |
People v. Stokesgreen1 sentence2025Accordingly, and without passing judgment on the ultimate merit of this issue, we grant counsel's application for leave to withdraw and assign new counsel to address this issue and any others that the record may disclose ( see People v Beaty , 22 NY3d 490, 492-493 [2014]; People v Stokes , 95 NY2d 633, 638-639 [2001]; see generally People v Cruwys , 113 AD2d 979, 980 [3d Dept 1985], lv denied 67 NY2d 650 [1986]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Cruwysgreen1 sentence2025Accordingly, and without passing judgment on the ultimate merit of this issue, we grant counsel's application for leave to withdraw and assign new counsel to address this issue and any others that the record may disclose ( see People v Beaty , 22 NY3d 490, 492-493 [2014]; People v Stokes , 95 NY2d 633, 638-639 [2001]; see generally People v Cruwys , 113 AD2d 979, 980 [3d Dept 1985], lv denied 67 NY2d 650 [1986]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Beatygreen1 sentence2025Accordingly, and without passing judgment on the ultimate merit of this issue, we grant counsel's application for leave to withdraw and assign new counsel to address this issue and any others that the record may disclose ( see People v Beaty , 22 NY3d 490, 492-493 [2014]; People v Stokes , 95 NY2d 633, 638-639 [2001]; see generally People v Cruwys , 113 AD2d 979, 980 [3d Dept 1985], lv denied 67 NY2d 650 [1986]). | 1 | 1 |
In re Friedmangreen1 sentence2018Indeed, even had a showing been made that the wife suffered from dementia at the time she executed the waiver, this alone would not have created a triable issue of fact as to her mental capacity ( see Matter of Alibrandi , 104 AD3d 1175 , 1176 [2013]; Matter of Nealon , 57 AD3d at 1327 ; Matter of Murray , 49 AD3d at 1005 ; Matter of Friedman , 26 AD3d 723, 725 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 711 [2006]). | 1 | 1 |
In re the Estate of Murraygreen2 sentences2018Such proof, however, has no bearing upon the wife's mental capacity at the time of the execution of the waiver in May 2012 ( see Matter of Murray , 49 AD3d 1003, 1005 [2008]; Matter of Clapper , 279 AD2d 730, 731 [2001]). 2018Indeed, even had a showing been made that the wife suffered from dementia at the time she executed the waiver, this alone would not have created a triable issue of fact as to her mental capacity ( see Matter of Alibrandi , 104 AD3d 1175 , 1176 [2013]; Matter of Nealon , 57 AD3d at 1327 ; Matter of Murray , 49 AD3d at 1005 ; Matter of Friedman , 26 AD3d 723, 725 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 711 [2006]). | 1 | 1 |
In re Clappergreen1 sentence2018Such proof, however, has no bearing upon the wife's mental capacity at the time of the execution of the waiver in May 2012 ( see Matter of Murray , 49 AD3d 1003, 1005 [2008]; Matter of Clapper , 279 AD2d 730, 731 [2001]). | 1 | 1 |
Perosi v. LiGrecigreen1 sentence2016On these facts, this exercise of authority by Carol falls within the scope of the “estate transactions” section of the power of attorney, pursuant to which an agent is authorized “to represent and to act for the principal in all ways and in all matters affecting any estate of a[n] . . . incompetent . . . with respect to which the principal is a fiduciary.” (General Obligations Law § 5-1502G [2].) This exercise is no more personal or discretionary than the execution of a waiver and consent to probate (Matter of Murray, 14 Misc 3d 591 [Sur Ct, Erie County 2006]) or a right of election (Matter of | 1 | 1 |
Sorenson v. Bridge Capital Corp.green1 sentence2011Bank of Odessa v Fazzari, 10 NY2d 394, 397-398 [1961] [finding a non-English speaker negligent for not asking his wife to read a document of obvious legal import, especially where he had done so in the past]; see also Sorenson, 52 AD3d at 266 [“negligent failure to read (an) agreement!) (precludes the assertion of) justifiable reliance, an essential element of fraud in the execution”]). | 1 | 1 |
First National Bank v. Fazzarigreen1 sentence2011Bank of Odessa v Fazzari, 10 NY2d 394, 397-398 [1961] [finding a non-English speaker negligent for not asking his wife to read a document of obvious legal import, especially where he had done so in the past]; see also Sorenson, 52 AD3d at 266 [“negligent failure to read (an) agreement!) (precludes the assertion of) justifiable reliance, an essential element of fraud in the execution”]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Greenegreen1 sentence2007Furthermore, defense counsel, who signed the waiver as á witness and continues to represent defendant in connection with this appeal, does not dispute the accuracy of the written waiver’s state ment that it was made in open court and, despite the dissent’s misgivings about counsel’s ability to explain the right, defendant does not claim that counsel’s advice regarding his right to appeal was in any way deficient or inadequate (see People v Fludd, 33 AD3d 1124, 1125 [2006]; People v Greene, 7 AD3d 923, 923 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 659 [2004]; cf. People v Edwards, 37 AD3d 871, 872 [2007], lv de | 1 | 1 |
People v. Fluddgreen1 sentence2007Furthermore, defense counsel, who signed the waiver as á witness and continues to represent defendant in connection with this appeal, does not dispute the accuracy of the written waiver’s state ment that it was made in open court and, despite the dissent’s misgivings about counsel’s ability to explain the right, defendant does not claim that counsel’s advice regarding his right to appeal was in any way deficient or inadequate (see People v Fludd, 33 AD3d 1124, 1125 [2006]; People v Greene, 7 AD3d 923, 923 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 659 [2004]; cf. People v Edwards, 37 AD3d 871, 872 [2007], lv de | 1 | 1 |
People v. Edwardsgreen1 sentence2007Furthermore, defense counsel, who signed the waiver as á witness and continues to represent defendant in connection with this appeal, does not dispute the accuracy of the written waiver’s state ment that it was made in open court and, despite the dissent’s misgivings about counsel’s ability to explain the right, defendant does not claim that counsel’s advice regarding his right to appeal was in any way deficient or inadequate (see People v Fludd, 33 AD3d 1124, 1125 [2006]; People v Greene, 7 AD3d 923, 923 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 659 [2004]; cf. People v Edwards, 37 AD3d 871, 872 [2007], lv de | 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. Callahan
green
2 sentences2007Although defendant asserts that County Court should have elicited his express acknowledgment on the record that he had, in fact, signed the waiver and done so with full understanding and awareness of its contents, such an inquiry was not required in light of the execution of the waiver in open court—which would have necessarily familiarized the court with the circumstances surrounding the waiver’s execution (cf. People v Callahan, 80 NY2d at 283 ). 1998We note that the legality of a sentence is an issue that survives appeal irrespective of a defendant’s execution of a waiver of appeal (see, People v Calla han, 80 NY2d 273, 280 ). | 2 | 1998–2007 |
In re the Estate of Nealon
green
1 sentence2018Indeed, even had a showing been made that the wife suffered from dementia at the time she executed the waiver, this alone would not have created a triable issue of fact as to her mental capacity ( see Matter of Alibrandi , 104 AD3d 1175 , 1176 [2013]; Matter of Nealon , 57 AD3d at 1327 ; Matter of Murray , 49 AD3d at 1005 ; Matter of Friedman , 26 AD3d 723, 725 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 711 [2006]). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
In re the Estate of Alibrandi
green
1 sentence2018Indeed, even had a showing been made that the wife suffered from dementia at the time she executed the waiver, this alone would not have created a triable issue of fact as to her mental capacity ( see Matter of Alibrandi , 104 AD3d 1175 , 1176 [2013]; Matter of Nealon , 57 AD3d at 1327 ; Matter of Murray , 49 AD3d at 1005 ; Matter of Friedman , 26 AD3d 723, 725 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 711 [2006]). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
In re the Estate of Lando
green
1 sentence2016On these facts, this exercise of authority by Carol falls within the scope of the “estate transactions” section of the power of attorney, pursuant to which an agent is authorized “to represent and to act for the principal in all ways and in all matters affecting any estate of a[n] . . . incompetent . . . with respect to which the principal is a fiduciary.” (General Obligations Law § 5-1502G [2].) This exercise is no more personal or discretionary than the execution of a waiver and consent to probate (Matter of Murray, 14 Misc 3d 591 [Sur Ct, Erie County 2006]) or a right of election (Matter of | 1 | 2016–2016 |
In re the Estate of Murray
green
1 sentence2016On these facts, this exercise of authority by Carol falls within the scope of the “estate transactions” section of the power of attorney, pursuant to which an agent is authorized “to represent and to act for the principal in all ways and in all matters affecting any estate of a[n] . . . incompetent . . . with respect to which the principal is a fiduciary.” (General Obligations Law § 5-1502G [2].) This exercise is no more personal or discretionary than the execution of a waiver and consent to probate (Matter of Murray, 14 Misc 3d 591 [Sur Ct, Erie County 2006]) or a right of election (Matter of | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Israel
green
1 sentence2007Furthermore, defense counsel, who signed the waiver as á witness and continues to represent defendant in connection with this appeal, does not dispute the accuracy of the written waiver’s state ment that it was made in open court and, despite the dissent’s misgivings about counsel’s ability to explain the right, defendant does not claim that counsel’s advice regarding his right to appeal was in any way deficient or inadequate (see People v Fludd, 33 AD3d 1124, 1125 [2006]; People v Greene, 7 AD3d 923, 923 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 659 [2004]; cf. People v Edwards, 37 AD3d 871, 872 [2007], lv de | 1 | 2007–2007 |
People v. Perez
green
1 sentence2003Moreover, the entire colloquy concerning the waiver took place in open court (see People v Perez, supra). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Pommer v. Trustco Bank
green
1 sentence2000Further, petitioner’s challenge to the validity of the waiver, which accrued upon the execution of the waiver, is time-barred (see, Pommer v Trustco Bank, 183 AD2d 976, 977 , lv dismissed in part and denied in part 81 NY2d 758 ). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Pommer v. Trustco Bank
neutral
1 sentence2000Further, petitioner’s challenge to the validity of the waiver, which accrued upon the execution of the waiver, is time-barred (see, Pommer v Trustco Bank, 183 AD2d 976, 977 , lv dismissed in part and denied in part 81 NY2d 758 ). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
People v. Allen
green
1 sentence1998Defendant was never administered an oath before the Grand Jury prior to the execution of the waiver of immunity, and he never ratified the waiver after being placed under oath (cf., People v Hanley, 227 AD2d 144, 144-145 ; People v Cole, 196 AD2d 634, 636 ; People v Allen, 163 AD2d 396, 397-398 , lv denied 77 NY2d 875 , 957). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
People v. Cole
green
1 sentence1998Defendant was never administered an oath before the Grand Jury prior to the execution of the waiver of immunity, and he never ratified the waiver after being placed under oath (cf., People v Hanley, 227 AD2d 144, 144-145 ; People v Cole, 196 AD2d 634, 636 ; People v Allen, 163 AD2d 396, 397-398 , lv denied 77 NY2d 875 , 957). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
People v. Hanley
green
1 sentence1998Defendant was never administered an oath before the Grand Jury prior to the execution of the waiver of immunity, and he never ratified the waiver after being placed under oath (cf., People v Hanley, 227 AD2d 144, 144-145 ; People v Cole, 196 AD2d 634, 636 ; People v Allen, 163 AD2d 396, 397-398 , lv denied 77 NY2d 875 , 957). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Stewart v. Attorney Grievance Commission
green
1 sentence1983Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the execution of a waiver by a teacher is not per se a violation of public policy (Matter of Abramovich v Board ofEduc., 46 NY2d 450 , cert den 444 US 845 ). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Abramovich v. Board of Education
green
1 sentence1983Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the execution of a waiver by a teacher is not per se a violation of public policy (Matter of Abramovich v Board ofEduc., 46 NY2d 450 , cert den 444 US 845 ). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Lief v. Hynes
green
1 sentence1981Especially is this so in light of the fact that a defendant’s right to appear and give testimony before a Grand Jury is expressly conditioned upon his “signing and submitting to the grand jury a waiver of immunity pursuant to” CPL 190.45 (CPL 190.50, subd 5, par [b]; see People v Ellwanger, 99 Misc 2d 807 ; People v Rodriguez, County Ct., Montgomery County, Feb. 1, 1979, White, J., affd 77 AD2d 820 , mot for lv to app den 51 NY2d 884 ), and that the defendant herein had the benefit of counsel during his Grand Jury appearance, a benefit specifically conferred by CPL 190.52 (subds 1,2) in exchan | 1 | 1981–1981 |
People v. Rice
neutral
1 sentence1980Compliance does not require a parroting of the precise language of the waiver but is satisfied where the prospective witness indicates his desire and willingness to waive any and all immunity that he would otherwise receive with respect to the testimony he gives (People v Rice, 93 Misc 2d 182 ). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
In re the Probate of the Will of Pearson
neutral
1 sentence1960S. 2d 679, 680.) The statement by the court in Matter of Pearson ( 19 Misc 2d 833, 834 ) is directly applicable: “ The petition and affidavits submitted in behalf of petitioner are insufficient to establish any invalidity or any impropriety in the execution of the waiver * * * There was no obligation on the part of the executor or his attorney to advise petitioner of the nature and effect of such instrument. | 1 | 1960–1960 |
| Ritchie v. Ritchie neutral | 1 | 1959–1959 |
| Matter of United States Trust Company of New York neutral | 1 | 1959–1959 |
| In Re the Estate of Stone green | 1 | 1959–1959 |
| In re the Accounting of Bishop green | 1 | 1959–1959 |
| In re the Estate of James neutral | 1 | 1959–1959 |
| Greenwich Savings Bank v. 105 East 24th Street Corp. neutral | 1 | 1959–1959 |
| People v. Walsh green | 1 | 1939–1939 |
| In Re the Estate of Stewart green | 1 | 1937–1937 |
| Weatherwax v. Royal Indemnity Co. green | 1 | 1929–1929 |
| Clark v. . Woodruff neutral | 1 | 1892–1892 |
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.