20 New York opinions name it 5 courts 1929–2024 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Vicinanzo v. Vicinanzogreen2 sentences2012As to the husband’s claim that Supreme Court should have considered the tax consequences of this order, the record reveals no request for such consideration nor evidence upon which such an analysis could have been based (see Cameron v Cameron, 51 AD3d 1165, 1166 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 702 [2008]; Vicinanzo v Vicinanzo, 193 AD2d 962, 968 [1993]). 2012As to the husband’s claim that Supreme Court should have considered the tax consequences of this order, the record reveals no request for such consideration nor evidence upon which such an analysis could have been based (see Cameron v Cameron, 51 AD3d 1165, 1166 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 702 [2008]; Vicinanzo v Vicinanzo, 193 AD2d 962, 968 [1993]). | 2 | 2 |
Chiotti v. Chiottigreen2 sentences2012The husband was thus required to rebut the resulting presumption that this asset was marital property by clear and convincing evidence, and his mere assertion that he objected to this transfer did not meet that signifi cant burden (see Burtchaell v Burtchaell, 42 AD3d at 787 ; Chiotti v Chiotti, 12 AD3d 995, 996-997 [2004]). 2012The husband was thus required to rebut the resulting presumption that this asset was marital property by clear and convincing evidence, and his mere assertion that he objected to this transfer did not meet that signifi cant burden (see Burtchaell v Burtchaell, 42 AD3d at 787 ; Chiotti v Chiotti, 12 AD3d 995, 996-997 [2004]). | 2 | 2 |
Cameron v. Camerongreen2 sentences2012As to the husband’s claim that Supreme Court should have considered the tax consequences of this order, the record reveals no request for such consideration nor evidence upon which such an analysis could have been based (see Cameron v Cameron, 51 AD3d 1165, 1166 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 702 [2008]; Vicinanzo v Vicinanzo, 193 AD2d 962, 968 [1993]). 2012As to the husband’s claim that Supreme Court should have considered the tax consequences of this order, the record reveals no request for such consideration nor evidence upon which such an analysis could have been based (see Cameron v Cameron, 51 AD3d 1165, 1166 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 702 [2008]; Vicinanzo v Vicinanzo, 193 AD2d 962, 968 [1993]). | 2 | 2 |
Andersen v. Weinrothgreen2 sentences2009Furthermore, the court, in confirming the report, properly deferred to the findings of the Special Referee, “who was in the best position to weigh the evidence and make credibility determinations” (Andersen v Weinroth, 48 AD3d 121, 133 [2007]). 2009Furthermore, the court, in confirming the report, properly deferred to the findings of the Special Referee, “who was in the best position to weigh the evidence and make credibility determinations” (Andersen v Weinroth, 48 AD3d 121, 133 [2007]). | 2 | 2 |
Law Offices of Rubenstein v. Shapirogreen2 sentences2009Plaintiffs’ contention that the court improperly referred the matter to a referee to hear and report on contested questions of fact was waived by their failure to object to the reference as well as by their willing participation in the resulting hearing (see Law Offs. of Sanford A. Rubenstein v Shapiro Baines & Saasto, 269 AD2d 224, 225 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 757 [2000]). 2009Plaintiffs’ contention that the court improperly referred the matter to a referee to hear and report on contested questions of fact was waived by their failure to object to the reference as well as by their willing participation in the resulting hearing (see Law Offs. of Sanford A. Rubenstein v Shapiro Baines & Saasto, 269 AD2d 224, 225 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 757 [2000]). | 2 | 2 |
Marbury v. Madisongreen1 sentence2024Marbury v Madison , 5 US 137, 178 [1803] ["It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is"]) [FN14] . | 1 | 1 |
People v. Huntergreen1 sentence2023The probation officer further testified that he verified defendant's subsequent arrest on federal charges through records maintained by the Division of Criminal [*2]Justice Services ( see CPLR 4518 [a]; People v Hunter , 62 AD3d 1207, 1208 [3d Dept 2009]) and authored the resulting violation of probation report. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Henriquezgreen1 sentence2020Conversely, when [*2]the "whole record" memorializes the court's compliance with its core advisory function ( id. ), then the defendant's choice to waive counsel must be respected—even if that decision is "rash[ ]" (People v Vivenzio, 62 NY2d 775, 776 [1984]), " foolish[ ]' " (People v Henriquez, 3 NY3d 210, 213 [2004]), or potentially lethal (see People v Gordon, 179 Misc 2d 940, 941-945 [Sup Ct, Queens County 1999] ). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Gordongreen1 sentence2020Conversely, when [*2]the "whole record" memorializes the court's compliance with its core advisory function ( id. ), then the defendant's choice to waive counsel must be respected—even if that decision is "rash[ ]" (People v Vivenzio, 62 NY2d 775, 776 [1984]), " foolish[ ]' " (People v Henriquez, 3 NY3d 210, 213 [2004]), or potentially lethal (see People v Gordon, 179 Misc 2d 940, 941-945 [Sup Ct, Queens County 1999] ). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Vivenziogreen1 sentence2020Conversely, when [*2]the "whole record" memorializes the court's compliance with its core advisory function ( id. ), then the defendant's choice to waive counsel must be respected—even if that decision is "rash[ ]" (People v Vivenzio, 62 NY2d 775, 776 [1984]), " foolish[ ]' " (People v Henriquez, 3 NY3d 210, 213 [2004]), or potentially lethal (see People v Gordon, 179 Misc 2d 940, 941-945 [Sup Ct, Queens County 1999] ). | 1 | 1 |
Addesso v. Shemtobgreen2 sentences2020The Court of Appeals has held that once a jurisdictional defense listed in CPLR 3211(a)(8) or (9) has been "waived" under CPLR 3211(e), the resulting waiver may not be retracted through subsequent amendment to the answer pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) ( see Addesso v Shemtob , 70 NY2d 689, 690 ; Boulay v Olympic Flame , 165 AD2d 191, 194 ; cf. Iacovangelo v Shepherd , 5 NY3d 184, 186 ; Ficorp, Ltd. v Gourian , 263 AD2d 392, 392-393 ). 2020Accordingly, "[w]hile permission to amend an answer is to be freely given pursuant to CPLR 3025(b), the waiver of a jurisdictional defense [listed in CPLR 3211(a)(8) or (9)] cannot be nullified by a subsequent amendment to a pleading adding the missing affirmative defense" ( McGowan v Hoffmeister , 15 AD3d 297, 297 ; see Addesso v Shemtob , 70 NY2d at 690 ). | 1 | 1 |
In re Takia B.green1 sentence2018In opposition, respondent failed to rebut the resulting presumption that she continues to suffer from a mental illness that renders her unable to care for a child for the foreseeable future ( see Matter of Noah Jeremiah J. [Kimberly J.] , 81 AD3d 37, 42 [1st Dept 2010]; Matter of Phoenix J. , 129 AD3d at 604; Matter of Takia B. [Antoine N.] , 73 AD3d 575, 576 [1st Dept 2010]). | 1 | 1 |
In re Noah Jeremiah J.green1 sentence2018In opposition, respondent failed to rebut the resulting presumption that she continues to suffer from a mental illness that renders her unable to care for a child for the foreseeable future ( see Matter of Noah Jeremiah J. [Kimberly J.] , 81 AD3d 37, 42 [1st Dept 2010]; Matter of Phoenix J. , 129 AD3d at 604; Matter of Takia B. [Antoine N.] , 73 AD3d 575, 576 [1st Dept 2010]). | 1 | 1 |
In re Phoenix J.green1 sentence2018In opposition, respondent failed to rebut the resulting presumption that she continues to suffer from a mental illness that renders her unable to care for a child for the foreseeable future ( see Matter of Noah Jeremiah J. [Kimberly J.] , 81 AD3d 37, 42 [1st Dept 2010]; Matter of Phoenix J. , 129 AD3d at 604; Matter of Takia B. [Antoine N.] , 73 AD3d 575, 576 [1st Dept 2010]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Aliajgreen1 sentence2014However, the time lapse is a critical component of the test (see People v Aliaj, 36 Misc 3d 682, 689 [2012]), and the resulting test evidence is therefore too significant to warrant its admission before the jury, even with a curative instruction. | 1 | 1 |
| Pennsylvania v. Munizgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gardner v. Broderickgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Irvinggreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
MATTER OF CAYUGA GRANDVIEW BEACH COOP. CORP. v. Town Bd. of Town of Springport
green
2 sentences2012As to the husband’s claim that Supreme Court should have considered the tax consequences of this order, the record reveals no request for such consideration nor evidence upon which such an analysis could have been based (see Cameron v Cameron, 51 AD3d 1165, 1166 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 702 [2008]; Vicinanzo v Vicinanzo, 193 AD2d 962, 968 [1993]). 2012As to the husband’s claim that Supreme Court should have considered the tax consequences of this order, the record reveals no request for such consideration nor evidence upon which such an analysis could have been based (see Cameron v Cameron, 51 AD3d 1165, 1166 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 702 [2008]; Vicinanzo v Vicinanzo, 193 AD2d 962, 968 [1993]). | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Burtchaell v. Burtchaell
green
2 sentences2012The husband was thus required to rebut the resulting presumption that this asset was marital property by clear and convincing evidence, and his mere assertion that he objected to this transfer did not meet that signifi cant burden (see Burtchaell v Burtchaell, 42 AD3d at 787 ; Chiotti v Chiotti, 12 AD3d 995, 996-997 [2004]). 2012The husband was thus required to rebut the resulting presumption that this asset was marital property by clear and convincing evidence, and his mere assertion that he objected to this transfer did not meet that signifi cant burden (see Burtchaell v Burtchaell, 42 AD3d at 787 ; Chiotti v Chiotti, 12 AD3d 995, 996-997 [2004]). | 2 | 2012–2012 |
West v. West
green
2 sentences1932(West v. West, 215 App. Div. 285 .) The said will contains a power of sale and the grant of a power of sale and real estate owned by a testator has been held to be an extremely cogent evidence of his intention that such real estate was to pass by the will, where, as in this matter, such power would otherwise be meaningless. 1929(West v. West, 215 App. Div. 285, 288 ; Ward v. Stanard, 82 id. 386 ; Matter of Faust, 83 Misc. 250 ; Matter of Kavanagh , 133 id. 399 .) The grant of power of sale of real estate owned by testator is an extremely cogent evidence of his intention that such real estate was to pass by the will where, as here, such power would otherwise be meaningless. | 2 | 1929–1932 |
Stefanik v. Hochul
green
1 sentence2024Marbury v Madison , 1 Cranch [5 US] 137, 178 [1803] ["It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what {**43 NY3d at 74}the law is"]). [FN14] The essence of our concurring and dissenting colleagues' opinions is our consideration of the constitutional history pertinent to voting is improper, because the text of the Constitution is absolutely clear ( see concurring op at 75, 83-84, 86-87, 90; dissenting op at 97, 98-102, 109, 111, 114). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Providence
green
1 sentence2020Conversely, when [*2]the "whole record" memorializes the court's compliance with its core advisory function ( id. ), then the defendant's choice to waive counsel must be respected—even if that decision is "rash[ ]" (People v Vivenzio, 62 NY2d 775, 776 [1984]), " foolish[ ]' " (People v Henriquez, 3 NY3d 210, 213 [2004]), or potentially lethal (see People v Gordon, 179 Misc 2d 940, 941-945 [Sup Ct, Queens County 1999] ). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Boulay v. Olympic Flame, Inc.
green
1 sentence2020The Court of Appeals has held that once a jurisdictional defense listed in CPLR 3211(a)(8) or (9) has been "waived" under CPLR 3211(e), the resulting waiver may not be retracted through subsequent amendment to the answer pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) ( see Addesso v Shemtob , 70 NY2d 689, 690 ; Boulay v Olympic Flame , 165 AD2d 191, 194 ; cf. Iacovangelo v Shepherd , 5 NY3d 184, 186 ; Ficorp, Ltd. v Gourian , 263 AD2d 392, 392-393 ). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Iacovangelo v. Shepherd
green
1 sentence2020The Court of Appeals has held that once a jurisdictional defense listed in CPLR 3211(a)(8) or (9) has been "waived" under CPLR 3211(e), the resulting waiver may not be retracted through subsequent amendment to the answer pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) ( see Addesso v Shemtob , 70 NY2d 689, 690 ; Boulay v Olympic Flame , 165 AD2d 191, 194 ; cf. Iacovangelo v Shepherd , 5 NY3d 184, 186 ; Ficorp, Ltd. v Gourian , 263 AD2d 392, 392-393 ). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
McGowan v. Hoffmeister
green
1 sentence2020Accordingly, "[w]hile permission to amend an answer is to be freely given pursuant to CPLR 3025(b), the waiver of a jurisdictional defense [listed in CPLR 3211(a)(8) or (9)] cannot be nullified by a subsequent amendment to a pleading adding the missing affirmative defense" ( McGowan v Hoffmeister , 15 AD3d 297, 297 ; see Addesso v Shemtob , 70 NY2d at 690 ). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Ficorp, Ltd. v. Gourian
green
1 sentence2020The Court of Appeals has held that once a jurisdictional defense listed in CPLR 3211(a)(8) or (9) has been "waived" under CPLR 3211(e), the resulting waiver may not be retracted through subsequent amendment to the answer pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) ( see Addesso v Shemtob , 70 NY2d 689, 690 ; Boulay v Olympic Flame , 165 AD2d 191, 194 ; cf. Iacovangelo v Shepherd , 5 NY3d 184, 186 ; Ficorp, Ltd. v Gourian , 263 AD2d 392, 392-393 ). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Volk v. City of New York
green
1 sentence2001The Garcia Court distinguished Volk v City of New York ( 284 NY 279 ) with the explanation that in Volk , the plaintiff, an employee at a public hospital, sought treatment at the hospital just as any member of the public was entitled to, and accordingly, “the services which she received were not incidental to her employment” ( 33 NY2d at 423 , supra). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Garcia v. Iserson
green
2 sentences2001In Garcia v Iserson ( 33 NY2d 421 ), the Court of Appeals explained that where an employee was treated in his employer’s infirmary by a physician paid by the employer to provide such care, the employee’s resulting claim of malpractice against his fellow employee-physician falls within the scope of the Work ers’ Compensation Law’s exclusivity provision. 2001The Garcia Court distinguished Volk v City of New York ( 284 NY 279 ) with the explanation that in Volk , the plaintiff, an employee at a public hospital, sought treatment at the hospital just as any member of the public was entitled to, and accordingly, “the services which she received were not incidental to her employment” ( 33 NY2d at 423 , supra). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Suggs v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
green
1 sentence1997The resulting immunity that attaches when an employee is compelled to answer such questions thus flows directly from the Constitution, attaches by operation of law, and is not subject to the employer’s discretion (Matter of Matt v Larocca, 71 NY2d 154 , cert denied 486 US 1007 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Matt v. Larocca
green
1 sentence1997The resulting immunity that attaches when an employee is compelled to answer such questions thus flows directly from the Constitution, attaches by operation of law, and is not subject to the employer’s discretion (Matter of Matt v Larocca, 71 NY2d 154 , cert denied 486 US 1007 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Crabtree Automotive, Inc. v. BMW of North America
green
1 sentence1992Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court erred in invalidating the local law and waiver (see, e.g., Costantakos v Board of Educ., 105 AD2d 825 ; Matter of Lincoln Ave. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
People v. Shaw
green
1 sentence1991(People v Shaw, 72 NY2d 1032 , supra; People v Gursey, 22 NY2d 224 [1968].) It has recently been held that a defendant, who has been arrested for driving while intoxicated but not formally charged, has a right to consult with a lawyer before deciding whether to consent to a sobriety test if he requests counsel and there is no danger (presumably to the test results) of delay. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| People v. Gursey green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| White v. Sheehan Memorial Hospital green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| People v. Avant green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| People v. Wallason green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| People v. Allsbrook neutral | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| People v. Allsbrook green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| People v. Johnson green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Crawford v. . McCarthy green | 1 | 1931–1931 |
| In re the Estate of Faust neutral | 1 | 1929–1929 |
| In re the Final Judicial Settlement of the Account of Proceedings of Peck neutral | 1 | 1929–1929 |
| In re the Estate of Kavanagh neutral | 1 | 1929–1929 |
| Nicholas v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. neutral | 1 | 1929–1929 |
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.