19 New York opinions name it 4 courts 1954–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Carncrossgreen2 sentences2016We nevertheless reject the contention of defendant in his main and pro se supplemental briefs that the court abused its discretion in granting the People’s motion to disqualify defense counsel based on his prior representation of the victim’s mother, a potential prosecution witness (see People v Watson, 26 NY3d 620, 624 [2016]; People v Carncross, 14 NY3d 319, 326-330 [2010]). 2016We nevertheless reject the contention of defendant in his main and pro se supplemental briefs that the court abused its discretion in granting the People’s motion to disqualify defense counsel based on his prior representation of the victim’s mother, a potential prosecution witness (see People v Watson, 26 NY3d 620, 624 [2016]; People v Carncross, 14 NY3d 319, 326-330 [2010]). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Sudlikgreen2 sentences2016Although defendant waived his right to appeal, County Court permitted defendant to reserve the right to challenge on appeal the court’s disqualification of defense counsel and, thus, we conclude that the waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass that challenge (see generally People v Sudlik, 129 AD3d 1548, 1549 [2015]). 2016Although defendant waived his right to appeal, County Court permitted defendant to reserve the right to challenge on appeal the court’s disqualification of defense counsel and, thus, we conclude that the waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass that challenge (see generally People v Sudlik, 129 AD3d 1548, 1549 [2015]). | 2 | 3 |
The People v. Lawrence Watsongreen2 sentences2016We nevertheless reject the contention of defendant in his main and pro se supplemental briefs that the court abused its discretion in granting the People’s motion to disqualify defense counsel based on his prior representation of the victim’s mother, a potential prosecution witness (see People v Watson, 26 NY3d 620, 624 [2016]; People v Carncross, 14 NY3d 319, 326-330 [2010]). 2016We nevertheless reject the contention of defendant in his main and pro se supplemental briefs that the court abused its discretion in granting the People’s motion to disqualify defense counsel based on his prior representation of the victim’s mother, a potential prosecution witness (see People v Watson, 26 NY3d 620, 624 [2016]; People v Carncross, 14 NY3d 319, 326-330 [2010]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Albertgreen2 sentences2003Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contentions that Supreme Court did not adequately state the reasons for a juror’s disqualification and that defense counsel should have been permitted to ask questions of that juror to determine the scope of the juror’s misconduct (see People v Albert, 85 NY2d 851, 852 [1995]; People v Howze, 239 AD2d 895, 896 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 940 [1997]). 1999After the court questioned complainant’s relatives, defendant did not request any inquiry of the juror (see, People v Albert, 85 NY2d 851, 852 ; People v Starks, 248 AD2d 1003 , lv denied 91 NY2d 1013 ; People v Gonzalez, 247 AD2d 328, 329 ). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Batemangreen1 sentence2023Further, to the extent that counsel failed to provide a specific [*8]objection to the disqualification of the hearing-impaired prospective juror, we note that failure to lodge an objection that had little to no chance of success does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel ( see People v Bateman , 212 AD3d 993, 997 [3d Dept 2023], lv denied ___ NY3d ___ [Apr. 26, 2023]; People v Calafell , 211 AD3d 1114, 1120 [3d Dept 2022], lv denied 39 NY3d 1077 [2023]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Calafellgreen1 sentence2023Further, to the extent that counsel failed to provide a specific [*8]objection to the disqualification of the hearing-impaired prospective juror, we note that failure to lodge an objection that had little to no chance of success does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel ( see People v Bateman , 212 AD3d 993, 997 [3d Dept 2023], lv denied ___ NY3d ___ [Apr. 26, 2023]; People v Calafell , 211 AD3d 1114, 1120 [3d Dept 2022], lv denied 39 NY3d 1077 [2023]). | 1 | 1 |
Players Five, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authoritygreen1 sentence2022Moreover, denying appellant's motion in its entirety did not serve to prevent the public dissemination of confidential or sensitive information because the hearing concerned a disqualification motion, not the underlying neglect allegations and, to the extent that confidential or sensitive matters were discussed, the court had the option of redacting those parts of the transcript ( see generally Schwahl , 47 AD3d at 699 ; Harris v City of Buffalo , 197 AD2d 918, 919 [4th Dept 1993]). | 1 | 1 |
Claim of Robbins v. Jerusalemgreen1 sentence2016Furthermore, claimant was represented by the same counsel throughout the relevant proceedings — who also had access to the transcripts of those proceedings — and claimant was provided with ample opportunity at the disqualification hearing before the WCLJ to address the issue of whether he knowingly misrepresented material facts (see Matter of Robbins v Mesivtha Tifereth Jerusalem, 60 AD3d 1166, 1167 [2009]). | 1 | 1 |
Claim of Dishaw v. Midas Service Expertsgreen1 sentence2016Experts, 27 AD3d 921, 921 [2006]). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Cruz v. Buffalo Board of Educationgreen1 sentence2016Inasmuch as the Board is the sole and final *1275 arbiter of witness credibility and entitled to reject claimant’s exculpatory testimony that his criminal activity was not work (see Matter of Cruz v Buffalo Bd. of Educ., 138 AD3d 1316, 1318 [2016]), the Board’s determination that claimant violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a (1) by making a false representation regarding material facts for the purpose of obtaining wage replacement benefits is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Losurdo v Asbestos Free, 1 NY3d at 266 ; Matter of Johnson v New York State Dept. of Transp., 305 | 1 | 1 |
Claim of Johnson v. New York State Department of Transportationgreen1 sentence2016Inasmuch as the Board is the sole and final *1275 arbiter of witness credibility and entitled to reject claimant’s exculpatory testimony that his criminal activity was not work (see Matter of Cruz v Buffalo Bd. of Educ., 138 AD3d 1316, 1318 [2016]), the Board’s determination that claimant violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a (1) by making a false representation regarding material facts for the purpose of obtaining wage replacement benefits is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Losurdo v Asbestos Free, 1 NY3d at 266 ; Matter of Johnson v New York State Dept. of Transp., 305 | 1 | 1 |
Clearwater Realty Co. v. Hernandezgreen1 sentence2009The doctrine of res judicata does not apply, absent a final adjudication on the merits (see Clearwater Realty Co. v Hernandez, 256 AD2d 100, 101 [1998]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Swidergreen1 sentence2003Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contentions that Supreme Court did not adequately state the reasons for a juror’s disqualification and that defense counsel should have been permitted to ask questions of that juror to determine the scope of the juror’s misconduct (see People v Albert, 85 NY2d 851, 852 [1995]; People v Howze, 239 AD2d 895, 896 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 940 [1997]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Robertsgreen1 sentence2003In addition, we note that the juror was disqualified upon defendant’s own motion and with defendant’s written consent (see CPL 270.35 [1]), and thus defendant has waived those contentions (see People v Smith, 304 AD2d 364, 365 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 566 [2003]; People v Woods, 238 AD2d 144 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 912 [1997]). | 1 | 1 |
| Barry v. O'Connellgreen | 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. Torres
green
2 sentences1999Defendant also failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court erred in failing to conduct a disqualification hearing with respect to a juror who was seen speaking with relatives of complainant (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Torres, 80 NY2d 944, 945 , rearg denied 81 NY2d 784 ). 1993People v Torres, 80 NY2d 944 . 83. | 2 | 1993–1999 |
People v. Buford
green
2 sentences1993Moreover, defendant’s contention that the trial court failed to conduct a sufficiently probing inquiry at the disqualification hearing or otherwise comply with the procedures announced in People v Buford ( 69 NY2d 290, 299 ) is unpreserved, since unlike defendant’s claim that the right to be present was abridged when the inquiry was conducted in his absence, an issue reviewable even without objection at trial, a claim that a disqualification hearing was inadequate must be preserved to present a question of law for review in the Court of Appeals. 1992Defendant’s further contention that the trial court failed to conduct a sufficiently probing inquiry at the disqualification hearing or otherwise comply with the procedures announced in People v Buford ( 69 NY2d 290, 299 ) is unpreserved. | 2 | 1992–1993 |
People v. Shinkle
green
1 sentence2025Key to the disqualification analysis appears to be "preventing situations in which former clients must depend on the good faith of their former lawyers turned adversaries to protect and honor confidences shared during the now extinct relations" ( id. ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Schwahl v. Grant
green
1 sentence2022Moreover, denying appellant's motion in its entirety did not serve to prevent the public dissemination of confidential or sensitive information because the hearing concerned a disqualification motion, not the underlying neglect allegations and, to the extent that confidential or sensitive matters were discussed, the court had the option of redacting those parts of the transcript ( see generally Schwahl , 47 AD3d at 699 ; Harris v City of Buffalo , 197 AD2d 918, 919 [4th Dept 1993]). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Losurdo v. Asbestos Free, Inc.
green
1 sentence2016Inasmuch as the Board is the sole and final *1275 arbiter of witness credibility and entitled to reject claimant’s exculpatory testimony that his criminal activity was not work (see Matter of Cruz v Buffalo Bd. of Educ., 138 AD3d 1316, 1318 [2016]), the Board’s determination that claimant violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a (1) by making a false representation regarding material facts for the purpose of obtaining wage replacement benefits is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Losurdo v Asbestos Free, 1 NY3d at 266 ; Matter of Johnson v New York State Dept. of Transp., 305 | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Claim of Schuss v. Delta Airlines, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence2016Both claimant and his attorney were informed by the WCLJ prior to the disqualification hearing that there was an issue of whether claimant violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a (1) based upon claimant’s incarceration for the criminal sale of a controlled substance (cf. Matter of Schuss v Delta Airlines, Inc., 120 AD3d 850 , 851-852 [2014]; Matter of Dishaw v Midas Serv. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Tekni-Plex, Inc. v. Meyner & Landis
green
1 sentence2008However, despite these protective purposes, the disqualification rule can result in interference with a party’s right to the counsel of his or her choice and has, in some instances, been employed in bad faith as a litigation tactic (see Tekni-Plex, 89 NY2d at 131-132 ). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
People v. Woods
neutral
1 sentence2003In addition, we note that the juror was disqualified upon defendant’s own motion and with defendant’s written consent (see CPL 270.35 [1]), and thus defendant has waived those contentions (see People v Smith, 304 AD2d 364, 365 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 566 [2003]; People v Woods, 238 AD2d 144 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 912 [1997]). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
People v. Starks
green
1 sentence1999After the court questioned complainant’s relatives, defendant did not request any inquiry of the juror (see, People v Albert, 85 NY2d 851, 852 ; People v Starks, 248 AD2d 1003 , lv denied 91 NY2d 1013 ; People v Gonzalez, 247 AD2d 328, 329 ). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
People v. Gonzalez
green
1 sentence1999After the court questioned complainant’s relatives, defendant did not request any inquiry of the juror (see, People v Albert, 85 NY2d 851, 852 ; People v Starks, 248 AD2d 1003 , lv denied 91 NY2d 1013 ; People v Gonzalez, 247 AD2d 328, 329 ). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
People v. Morales
green
1 sentence1998Moreover, even if the disqualification hearing is viewed as an “ancillary proceeding” because the questioning concerned the juror’s ability to remain objective through exploration of any bias, defendant had a right to be present under CPL 260.20 (see, People v Sprowal, 84 NY2d 113, 118 ; People v Antommarchi, supra, at 250 ; People v Morales, supra, at 456 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
People v. Antommarchi
green
1 sentence1998Moreover, even if the disqualification hearing is viewed as an “ancillary proceeding” because the questioning concerned the juror’s ability to remain objective through exploration of any bias, defendant had a right to be present under CPL 260.20 (see, People v Sprowal, 84 NY2d 113, 118 ; People v Antommarchi, supra, at 250 ; People v Morales, supra, at 456 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
People v. Sprowal
green
1 sentence1998Moreover, even if the disqualification hearing is viewed as an “ancillary proceeding” because the questioning concerned the juror’s ability to remain objective through exploration of any bias, defendant had a right to be present under CPL 260.20 (see, People v Sprowal, 84 NY2d 113, 118 ; People v Antommarchi, supra, at 250 ; People v Morales, supra, at 456 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Cardinale v. Golinello
green
1 sentence1998By contrast with Solow , the law firm involved in the present case, as in Cardinale (supra), is a small firm with 26 lawyers whose activities and interrelationships are presumptively informal; in Solow , the law firm had 372 attorneys segregated in different departments. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
People v. Mehmedi
green
1 sentence1992Unlike defendant’s claim that the right to be present was abridged when the inquiry was conducted in his absence — an issue we will review even without objection at trial (People v Mehmedi, 69 NY2d 759, 760 ) — a claim that a disqualification hearing was inadequate must be preserved to present a question of law for our review. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Rice v. Baron green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
People v. Paperno
green
1 sentence1983Certainly, the delay in seeking disqualification reflects adversely on the good faith of the instant insurers (see People v Paperno, supra). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Bishop v. Wood green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Matter of Hilsenrad v. Miller green | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| Scheiber v. Hodson neutral | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| People v. Harris green | 1 | 1954–1954 |
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.