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.
18 New York opinions name it 4 courts 1940–2026 4 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. Clermontgreen1 sentence2026In light of the foregoing, we conclude that " 'defendant is entitled to a suppression hearing' with respect to the legality of the police encounter" ( Carter , 142 AD3d at 1343 , quoting People v Bilal , 27 NY3d 961, 962 [2016]), and we therefore conditionally modify the judgment by remitting the matter to County Court for further proceedings ( see id. ; see generally Clermont , 22 NY3d at 934 ; Evans , 243 AD3d at 1339). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bilalgreen2 sentences2026In light of the foregoing, we conclude that " 'defendant is entitled to a suppression hearing' with respect to the legality of the police encounter" ( Carter , 142 AD3d at 1343 , quoting People v Bilal , 27 NY3d 961, 962 [2016]), and we therefore conditionally modify the judgment by remitting the matter to County Court for further proceedings ( see id. ; see generally Clermont , 22 NY3d at 934 ; Evans , 243 AD3d at 1339). 2026In light of the foregoing, we conclude that " 'defendant is entitled to a suppression hearing' with respect to the legality of the police encounter" ( Carter , 142 AD3d at 1343 , quoting People v Bilal , 27 NY3d 961, 962 [2016]), and we therefore conditionally modify the judgment by remitting the matter to County Court for further proceedings ( see id. ; see generally Clermont , 22 NY3d at 934 ; Evans , 243 AD3d at 1339). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Rodneygreen1 sentence2025Furthermore, even if preclusion is not mandated, the "the purpose of CPL § 710.30 is to inform a defendant that the People intend to offer evidence of a statement to a public officer at trial so that a timely motion to suppress the evidence may be made" ( People v Rodney , 85 NY2d 289, 291-92 [1995]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Smithgreen1 sentence2017To the extent that defendant challenges statements he made prior to being read his Miranda rights, County Court properly determined that such statements were admissible, as the record establishes that they were “spontaneous statements made while in custody which [were] not the product of questioning or its functional equivalent” (People v Smith, 21 AD3d 587, 588 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 833 [2005]; see People v Haskins, 121 AD3d 1181 , 1183 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1120 [2015]). 4 . | 1 | 1 |
People v. Haskinsgreen1 sentence2017To the extent that defendant challenges statements he made prior to being read his Miranda rights, County Court properly determined that such statements were admissible, as the record establishes that they were “spontaneous statements made while in custody which [were] not the product of questioning or its functional equivalent” (People v Smith, 21 AD3d 587, 588 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 833 [2005]; see People v Haskins, 121 AD3d 1181 , 1183 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1120 [2015]). 4 . | 1 | 1 |
De Long v. County of Eriegreen2 sentences2016Thus, plaintiff failed to preserve this challenge to the instruction (see CPLR 4017, 4110-b; De Long v County of Erie, 60 NY2d 296, 306 [1983]; Curanovic v New York Cent. 2016Thus, plaintiff failed to preserve this challenge to the instruction (see CPLR 4017, 4110-b; De Long v County of Erie, 60 NY2d 296, 306 [1983]; Curanovic v New York Cent. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lopezgreen1 sentence2009Preliminarily, we note that defendant is not precluded from raising this challenge by the waiver of appeal inasmuch as the record does not disclose that he understood “that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty” (People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; see People v Lee, 51 AD3d 1217, 1217 [2008]; People v Newcomb, 45 AD3d 890, 891 [2007]; compare People v Ramirez, 42 AD3d 671, 671 [2007]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Ramirezgreen1 sentence2009Preliminarily, we note that defendant is not precluded from raising this challenge by the waiver of appeal inasmuch as the record does not disclose that he understood “that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty” (People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; see People v Lee, 51 AD3d 1217, 1217 [2008]; People v Newcomb, 45 AD3d 890, 891 [2007]; compare People v Ramirez, 42 AD3d 671, 671 [2007]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Newcombgreen1 sentence2009Preliminarily, we note that defendant is not precluded from raising this challenge by the waiver of appeal inasmuch as the record does not disclose that he understood “that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty” (People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; see People v Lee, 51 AD3d 1217, 1217 [2008]; People v Newcomb, 45 AD3d 890, 891 [2007]; compare People v Ramirez, 42 AD3d 671, 671 [2007]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Leegreen1 sentence2009Preliminarily, we note that defendant is not precluded from raising this challenge by the waiver of appeal inasmuch as the record does not disclose that he understood “that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty” (People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; see People v Lee, 51 AD3d 1217, 1217 [2008]; People v Newcomb, 45 AD3d 890, 891 [2007]; compare People v Ramirez, 42 AD3d 671, 671 [2007]). | 1 | 1 |
Claudio v. Selskygreen1 sentence2007In sum, petitioner has not established that his employee assistant was inadequate or that he was prejudiced by any alleged deficiencies (see Matter of Claudio v Selsky, 4 AD3d 702, 703 [2004]; Matter of Russell v Selsky, 305 AD2d 844, 844 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 510 [2003]). | 1 | 1 |
Russell v. Selskygreen1 sentence2007In sum, petitioner has not established that his employee assistant was inadequate or that he was prejudiced by any alleged deficiencies (see Matter of Claudio v Selsky, 4 AD3d 702, 703 [2004]; Matter of Russell v Selsky, 305 AD2d 844, 844 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 510 [2003]). | 1 | 1 |
Amer. Trial Lawyers Assoc. v. NJ Supreme Ct.green1 sentence2004Branch v New Jersey Supreme Ct., 126 NJ Super 577, 593, 316 A2d 19, 28 [1974] [rejecting a challenge to a rule regulating “contingent fee contracts made and partly performed prior to” the effective date of the rule], affd 66 NJ 258, 330 A2d 350 [1974]). | 1 | 1 |
Legal Aid Society v. City of New Yorkgreen1 sentence2002As explained in Morris v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys. ( 129 F Supp 2d 599, 605-606 [SD NY 2001]), because “ ‘ “the question of a waiver of a federally guaranteed constitutional right is * * * a federal question controlled by federal law,” ’ federal law applies” to a challenge to the waiver (citing Legal Aid Socy. v City of New York, 114 F Supp 2d 204, 226 [SD NY 2000], quoting Brookhart v Janis, 384 US 1, 4 [1966]), and the standard for assessing such a waiver is whether it was voluntary, knowing and intelligent. | 1 | 1 |
Brookhart v. Janisgreen1 sentence2002As explained in Morris v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys. ( 129 F Supp 2d 599, 605-606 [SD NY 2001]), because “ ‘ “the question of a waiver of a federally guaranteed constitutional right is * * * a federal question controlled by federal law,” ’ federal law applies” to a challenge to the waiver (citing Legal Aid Socy. v City of New York, 114 F Supp 2d 204, 226 [SD NY 2000], quoting Brookhart v Janis, 384 US 1, 4 [1966]), and the standard for assessing such a waiver is whether it was voluntary, knowing and intelligent. | 1 | 1 |
Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co.green1 sentence2002(Fuentes v Shevin, 407 US 67 [1972]; Overmyer Co. v Frick Co., 405 US 174 [1972]; see Alexander v Gardner-Denver Co., 415 US 36 , 52 n 15 [1974].) Equality of bargaining power between the parties and whether there was representation by counsel are relevant factors used in determining whether the contractual waiver of constitutional rights was made “with full understanding of the consequences of [the] waiver.” (Erie Telecom., Inc. v City of Erie, Pa., 853 F2d 1084, 1096 [3d Cir 1988].) Without a record and hearing officer involvement, two of the safeguards provided by the Escalera decision, the | 1 | 1 |
Morris v. New York City Employees' Retirement Systemgreen1 sentence2002As explained in Morris v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys. ( 129 F Supp 2d 599, 605-606 [SD NY 2001]), because “ ‘ “the question of a waiver of a federally guaranteed constitutional right is * * * a federal question controlled by federal law,” ’ federal law applies” to a challenge to the waiver (citing Legal Aid Socy. v City of New York, 114 F Supp 2d 204, 226 [SD NY 2000], quoting Brookhart v Janis, 384 US 1, 4 [1966]), and the standard for assessing such a waiver is whether it was voluntary, knowing and intelligent. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Santiagogreen1 sentence1993"Sentencing courts, in the exercise of their unique judicial function in criminal proceedings, are wisely allocated wide latitude as they are recognized to be in a superior position to dispense proportionate and fair punishment (People v Farrar, 52 NY2d 302, 305-306 ).” (People v Day, 73 NY2d 208, 212 .) The challenge to the factors relied on by the sentencing court in finding mitigating circumstances must fail, as, contrary to the view expressed in Smith , "[t]he nature of the perpetrator and the absence of injury both bear directly on the manner in which the crimes were committed” (People v | 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. Lazzaro
green
2 sentences2025Persuasive appellate authority has held that the mere act of moving for suppression forecloses the challenge defense requests now ( see People v. Williams , 238 AD2d 914 [4th Dept., 1997] ["By moving for suppression, defendant waived his right to challenge the adequacy of the CPL 710.30 notice."]; People v. Lazzaro , 62 AD3d 1035 [3rd Dept., 2009] ["Despite the inadequate notice, most of the statements were admissible against defendant because he moved to suppress his statements, those statements were identified at a hearing addressing their voluntariness and the court denied the motion after 2025Persuasive appellate authority has held that the mere act of moving for suppression forecloses the challenge defense requests now ( see People v Williams , 238 AD2d 914 [4th [*2]Dept1997] ["By moving for suppression, defendant waived his right to challenge the adequacy of the CPL 710.30 notice"]; People v Lazzaro , 62 AD3d 1035 [3d Dept 2009] ["Despite the inadequate notice, most of the statements were admissible against defendant because he moved to suppress his statements, those statements were identified at a hearing addressing their voluntariness and the court denied the motion after the h | 3 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Williams
neutral
2 sentences2025Persuasive appellate authority has held that the mere act of moving for suppression forecloses the challenge defense requests now ( see People v. Williams , 238 AD2d 914 [4th Dept., 1997] ["By moving for suppression, defendant waived his right to challenge the adequacy of the CPL 710.30 notice."]; People v. Lazzaro , 62 AD3d 1035 [3rd Dept., 2009] ["Despite the inadequate notice, most of the statements were admissible against defendant because he moved to suppress his statements, those statements were identified at a hearing addressing their voluntariness and the court denied the motion after 2025Persuasive appellate authority has held that the mere act of moving for suppression forecloses the challenge defense requests now ( see People v Williams , 238 AD2d 914 [4th [*2]Dept1997] ["By moving for suppression, defendant waived his right to challenge the adequacy of the CPL 710.30 notice"]; People v Lazzaro , 62 AD3d 1035 [3d Dept 2009] ["Despite the inadequate notice, most of the statements were admissible against defendant because he moved to suppress his statements, those statements were identified at a hearing addressing their voluntariness and the court denied the motion after the h | 3 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Carter
green
1 sentence2026In light of the foregoing, we conclude that " 'defendant is entitled to a suppression hearing' with respect to the legality of the police encounter" ( Carter , 142 AD3d at 1343 , quoting People v Bilal , 27 NY3d 961, 962 [2016]), and we therefore conditionally modify the judgment by remitting the matter to County Court for further proceedings ( see id. ; see generally Clermont , 22 NY3d at 934 ; Evans , 243 AD3d at 1339). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Spaulding
green
1 sentence2017To the extent that defendant challenges statements he made prior to being read his Miranda rights, County Court properly determined that such statements were admissible, as the record establishes that they were “spontaneous statements made while in custody which [were] not the product of questioning or its functional equivalent” (People v Smith, 21 AD3d 587, 588 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 833 [2005]; see People v Haskins, 121 AD3d 1181 , 1183 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1120 [2015]). 4 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
American Trial Lawyers Ass'n v. New Jersey Supreme Court
green
1 sentence2004Branch v New Jersey Supreme Ct., 126 NJ Super 577, 593, 316 A2d 19, 28 [1974] [rejecting a challenge to a rule regulating “contingent fee contracts made and partly performed prior to” the effective date of the rule], affd 66 NJ 258, 330 A2d 350 [1974]). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Fuentes v. Shevin
green
1 sentence2002(Fuentes v Shevin, 407 US 67 [1972]; Overmyer Co. v Frick Co., 405 US 174 [1972]; see Alexander v Gardner-Denver Co., 415 US 36 , 52 n 15 [1974].) Equality of bargaining power between the parties and whether there was representation by counsel are relevant factors used in determining whether the contractual waiver of constitutional rights was made “with full understanding of the consequences of [the] waiver.” (Erie Telecom., Inc. v City of Erie, Pa., 853 F2d 1084, 1096 [3d Cir 1988].) Without a record and hearing officer involvement, two of the safeguards provided by the Escalera decision, the | 1 | 2002–2002 |
D. H. Overmyer Co., Inc. of Ohio v. Frick Co.
green
1 sentence2002(Fuentes v Shevin, 407 US 67 [1972]; Overmyer Co. v Frick Co., 405 US 174 [1972]; see Alexander v Gardner-Denver Co., 415 US 36 , 52 n 15 [1974].) Equality of bargaining power between the parties and whether there was representation by counsel are relevant factors used in determining whether the contractual waiver of constitutional rights was made “with full understanding of the consequences of [the] waiver.” (Erie Telecom., Inc. v City of Erie, Pa., 853 F2d 1084, 1096 [3d Cir 1988].) Without a record and hearing officer involvement, two of the safeguards provided by the Escalera decision, the | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Smith v. Maryland
red
1 sentence2001Standing to Challenge An analysis of standing to suppress evidence alleged to have been illegally obtained by the use of a pen register must begin by noting that this evidence differs from most other suppressible evidence in that its illegal collection does not raise Federal or State constitutional concerns (see Smith v Maryland, 442 US 735 [1979]; People v Guerra, 65 NY2d 60 [1985]). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
In re the Claim of Arena
green
1 sentence1999We also note that petitioner’s claim that the determination should be annulled because the misbehavior report allegedly listed the wrong rule number was waived due to his failure to raise this challenge at the hearing (see, Matter of Richardson v Coombe, 231 AD2d 789, 790 ). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Dumpson v. Goord
neutral
1 sentence1999Nevertheless, were this argument properly before us and a discrepancy was established, we would reject it as harmless error inasmuch as the misbehavior report sufficiently informed petitioner of the charge against him to enable him to prepare an adequate defense (see, Matter of Dumpson v Goord, 253 AD2d 991, 992 ). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
People v. Day
green
1 sentence1993"Sentencing courts, in the exercise of their unique judicial function in criminal proceedings, are wisely allocated wide latitude as they are recognized to be in a superior position to dispense proportionate and fair punishment (People v Farrar, 52 NY2d 302, 305-306 ).” (People v Day, 73 NY2d 208, 212 .) The challenge to the factors relied on by the sentencing court in finding mitigating circumstances must fail, as, contrary to the view expressed in Smith , "[t]he nature of the perpetrator and the absence of injury both bear directly on the manner in which the crimes were committed” (People v | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| People v. Outley green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| People v. O'Neill green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Flegenheimer v. Brogan
green
2 sentences1993Finally, plaintiff argues that the unenforceability of paragraph 18 on public policy grounds renders any settlement of a claim arising under that paragraph likewise unenforceable, noting that were the rule otherwise, "the parties could by their private agreement waive the illegality and evade the prohibition against the original contract.” (Sweinhart v Bamberger, 166 Misc 256, 259 ; see, Restatement of Contracts § 590; 14 Williston, Contracts § 1629, at 9-10 [3d ed 1972].) While some bargains are so offensive to society that courts will not entertain the action — essentially leaving the partie 1993Finally, plaintiff argues that the unenforceability of paragraph 18 on public policy grounds renders any settlement of a claim arising under that paragraph likewise unenforceable, noting that were the rule otherwise, "the parties could by their private agreement waive the illegality and evade the prohibition against the original contract." ( Sweinhart v Bamberger , 166 Misc 256, 259 ; see , Restatement of Contracts § 590; 14 Williston, Contracts § 1629, at 9-10 [3d ed 1972].) While some bargains are so offensive to society that courts will not entertain the action — essentially leaving the par | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| McConnell v. Commonwealth Pictures Corp. green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| People v. Banks green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| People v. Faulkner green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Sweinhart v. Bamberger green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| People v. Farrar green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| People v. Cable green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Lloyd Capital Corp. v. Pat Henchar, Inc. green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Olympic Tower Associates v. City of New York green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Matter of Marburg v. Cole green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Matter of Levy green | 1 | 1940–1940 |
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.