17 New York opinions name it 5 courts 1920–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hearst Corp. v. Clynegreen2 sentences2026The circumstances present in this case do not warrant addressing the issues raised under an exception to the mootness doctrine ( see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne , 50 NY2d 707 [1980]; Michalak v Fechtel , 2010 NY Slip Op 50946[U] ; Coleman v Ceraolo , 26 [*2] Misc 3d 131[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50057[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2010]). 2026The circumstances present in this case do not warrant addressing the issues raised under an exception to the mootness doctrine ( see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne , 50 NY2d 707 [1980]; Michalak v Fechtel , 2010 NY Slip Op 50946[U]; Coleman v Ceraolo , 26 [*2] Misc 3d 131[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50057[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2010]). | 2 | 4 |
People v. Garciagreen2 sentences2021Accordingly, we hold the appeal in abeyance and remand for determination, based on the hearing minutes, of the issues raised at the hearing, but not decided ( see People v Garcia , 20 NY3d 317, 324 [2012]). 2021Accordingly, we hold the appeal in abeyance and remand for determination, based on the hearing minutes, of the issues raised at the hearing, but not decided ( see People v Garcia , 20 NY3d 317, 324 [2012]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Contrerasgreen1 sentence2020We thus conclude that defendant, "by failing to seek a ruling on that part of his omnibus motion seeking to suppress his statements and by failing to object to the admission in evidence of his statements at trial," has abandoned his contention that the statements should have been suppressed ( People v Contreras , 154 AD3d 1320, 1321 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 1104 [2018]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Di Stefanogreen1 sentence2017The court erred in denying defendant’s suppression motion on the ground that the officer recovered the gravity knife from defendant based on a “search incident to arrest.” Although the record supports a finding that the officer had probable cause to arrest defendant for assault based on reliable information from the assault victim, the People failed to meet their burden (see People v Di Stefano, 38 NY2d 640, 652 [1976]) of demonstrating that the officer intended to arrest defendant for the assault *629 at the time he recovered the knife (see People v Reid, 24 NY3d 615, 620 [2014]; People v Man | 1 | 1 |
The People v. Graham Reidgreen1 sentence2017The court erred in denying defendant’s suppression motion on the ground that the officer recovered the gravity knife from defendant based on a “search incident to arrest.” Although the record supports a finding that the officer had probable cause to arrest defendant for assault based on reliable information from the assault victim, the People failed to meet their burden (see People v Di Stefano, 38 NY2d 640, 652 [1976]) of demonstrating that the officer intended to arrest defendant for the assault *629 at the time he recovered the knife (see People v Reid, 24 NY3d 615, 620 [2014]; People v Man | 1 | 1 |
Hallock v. Stategreen1 sentence2016Were we to reach the merits, we would affirm the denial of tenant's motions, inasmuch as she failed to demonstrate legal cause to vacate the stipulation settling the underlying commercial nonpayment proceeding ( see Hallock v State of New York , 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]). | 1 | 1 |
In re Blaize F.green2 sentences2011While such a practice, coupled with the court’s involvement in the examination of the witnesses who testified at the hearing, may, in some circumstances, present legitimate questions regarding the court’s impartiality (see Matter of Blaize F. [Christopher F.], 74 AD3d 1454, 1454-1455 [2010]; Matter of Stampfler v Snow, 290 AD2d 595, 596 [2002]), we note that neither party opposed the court’s decision to issue the subpoena or objected to its questioning of witnesses and, therefore, such a challenge has not been preserved for our review (see Matter of Borggreen v Borggreen, 13 AD3d 756, 757 [200 2011While such a practice, coupled with the court’s involvement in the examination of the witnesses who testified at the hearing, may, in some circumstances, present legitimate questions regarding the court’s impartiality (see Matter of Blaize F. [Christopher F.], 74 AD3d 1454, 1454-1455 [2010]; Matter of Stampfler v Snow, 290 AD2d 595, 596 [2002]), we note that neither party opposed the court’s decision to issue the subpoena or objected to its questioning of witnesses and, therefore, such a challenge has not been preserved for our review (see Matter of Borggreen v Borggreen, 13 AD3d 756, 757 [200 | 1 | 1 |
Borggreen v. Borggreengreen1 sentence2011While such a practice, coupled with the court’s involvement in the examination of the witnesses who testified at the hearing, may, in some circumstances, present legitimate questions regarding the court’s impartiality (see Matter of Blaize F. [Christopher F.], 74 AD3d 1454, 1454-1455 [2010]; Matter of Stampfler v Snow, 290 AD2d 595, 596 [2002]), we note that neither party opposed the court’s decision to issue the subpoena or objected to its questioning of witnesses and, therefore, such a challenge has not been preserved for our review (see Matter of Borggreen v Borggreen, 13 AD3d 756, 757 [200 | 1 | 1 |
Stampfler v. Snowgreen2 sentences2011While such a practice, coupled with the court’s involvement in the examination of the witnesses who testified at the hearing, may, in some circumstances, present legitimate questions regarding the court’s impartiality (see Matter of Blaize F. [Christopher F.], 74 AD3d 1454, 1454-1455 [2010]; Matter of Stampfler v Snow, 290 AD2d 595, 596 [2002]), we note that neither party opposed the court’s decision to issue the subpoena or objected to its questioning of witnesses and, therefore, such a challenge has not been preserved for our review (see Matter of Borggreen v Borggreen, 13 AD3d 756, 757 [200 2011While such a practice, coupled with the court’s involvement in the examination of the witnesses who testified at the hearing, may, in some circumstances, present legitimate questions regarding the court’s impartiality (see Matter of Blaize F. [Christopher F.], 74 AD3d 1454, 1454-1455 [2010]; Matter of Stampfler v Snow, 290 AD2d 595, 596 [2002]), we note that neither party opposed the court’s decision to issue the subpoena or objected to its questioning of witnesses and, therefore, such a challenge has not been preserved for our review (see Matter of Borggreen v Borggreen, 13 AD3d 756, 757 [200 | 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 ex rel. Lee v. Warden & Keeper of the Prison
neutral
2 sentences1941Both orders affirmed, with one bill of ten dollars costs and disbursements (Romania v. Lamport & Holt, Ltd., 207 App. Div. 861 ; Fonville v. Irving Poultry Co., Inc., 243 id. 528), the examination of defendant to proceed upon ten days’ notice. 1941Both orders affirmed, with one bill of ten dollars costs and disbursements (Romania v. Lamport & Holt, Ltd., 207 App. Div. 861 ; Fonville v. Irving Poultry Co., Inc., 243 id. 528), the examination of defendant to proceed upon ten days’ notice. | 2 | 1941–1941 |
People v. Ferrer
green
1 sentence2020We thus conclude that defendant, "by failing to seek a ruling on that part of his omnibus motion seeking to suppress his statements and by failing to object to the admission in evidence of his statements at trial," has abandoned his contention that the statements should have been suppressed ( People v Contreras , 154 AD3d 1320, 1321 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 1104 [2018]). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Washington
green
1 sentence2017People v Washington, 82 AD3d 570 [1st Dept 2011]). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Mangum
green
1 sentence2017The court erred in denying defendant’s suppression motion on the ground that the officer recovered the gravity knife from defendant based on a “search incident to arrest.” Although the record supports a finding that the officer had probable cause to arrest defendant for assault based on reliable information from the assault victim, the People failed to meet their burden (see People v Di Stefano, 38 NY2d 640, 652 [1976]) of demonstrating that the officer intended to arrest defendant for the assault *629 at the time he recovered the knife (see People v Reid, 24 NY3d 615, 620 [2014]; People v Man | 1 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Velez
green
1 sentence1997As this court has previously held in the instant matter, a State statute carries with it a strong presumption of validity, and ordinarily it should not be set aside as unconstitutional unless such a conclusion is established beyond a reasonable doubt because the statute is "arbitrary and confiscatory, or wholly without rational basis.” (McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 150 [b]; People v Smith, 63 NY2d 41 ; People v Davis, 43 NY2d 17 , cert denied 435 US 998 ; People v Velez, 88 Misc 2d 378 .) While the issues raised by the defense are arguable, 5 the conclusion defendant asks thi | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Chapman v. Indiana
green
1 sentence1997As this court has previously held in the instant matter, a State statute carries with it a strong presumption of validity, and ordinarily it should not be set aside as unconstitutional unless such a conclusion is established beyond a reasonable doubt because the statute is "arbitrary and confiscatory, or wholly without rational basis.” (McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 150 [b]; People v Smith, 63 NY2d 41 ; People v Davis, 43 NY2d 17 , cert denied 435 US 998 ; People v Velez, 88 Misc 2d 378 .) While the issues raised by the defense are arguable, 5 the conclusion defendant asks thi | 1 | 1997–1997 |
People v. Davis
green
1 sentence1997As this court has previously held in the instant matter, a State statute carries with it a strong presumption of validity, and ordinarily it should not be set aside as unconstitutional unless such a conclusion is established beyond a reasonable doubt because the statute is "arbitrary and confiscatory, or wholly without rational basis.” (McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 150 [b]; People v Smith, 63 NY2d 41 ; People v Davis, 43 NY2d 17 , cert denied 435 US 998 ; People v Velez, 88 Misc 2d 378 .) While the issues raised by the defense are arguable, 5 the conclusion defendant asks thi | 1 | 1997–1997 |
People v. Smith
green
1 sentence1997As this court has previously held in the instant matter, a State statute carries with it a strong presumption of validity, and ordinarily it should not be set aside as unconstitutional unless such a conclusion is established beyond a reasonable doubt because the statute is "arbitrary and confiscatory, or wholly without rational basis.” (McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 150 [b]; People v Smith, 63 NY2d 41 ; People v Davis, 43 NY2d 17 , cert denied 435 US 998 ; People v Velez, 88 Misc 2d 378 .) While the issues raised by the defense are arguable, 5 the conclusion defendant asks thi | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Day v. Continental Insurance
green
1 sentence1990(See, People v Morgan, 66 NY2d 255 , cert denied 476 US 1120 ; People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399 .) Concur—Kupferman, J. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
People v. Galloway
green
1 sentence1990(See, People v Morgan, 66 NY2d 255 , cert denied 476 US 1120 ; People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399 .) Concur—Kupferman, J. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
People v. Gonzalez
green
1 sentence1990(Cf., People v Gonzalez, 55 NY2d 720, 722 .) We find no merit to appellant’s arguments regarding the propriety of the People’s summation which was responsive to the issues raised in defense counsel’s summation. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
People v. Morgan
green
1 sentence1990(See, People v Morgan, 66 NY2d 255 , cert denied 476 US 1120 ; People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399 .) Concur—Kupferman, J. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
People v. Suitte
green
1 sentence1987The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 ). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
People v. Ortiz
green
1 sentence1987Although the prosecutor improperly characterized the issues raised by the defense as "smoke screens to divert [the jury’s] attention from the real issues” (see, People v Ortiz, 125 AD2d 502 ), given the strong evidence against the defendant and the limited nature of the remark we find that the error was harmless (see, People v Wood, 66 NY2d 374 ). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
People v. Wood
green
1 sentence1987Although the prosecutor improperly characterized the issues raised by the defense as "smoke screens to divert [the jury’s] attention from the real issues” (see, People v Ortiz, 125 AD2d 502 ), given the strong evidence against the defendant and the limited nature of the remark we find that the error was harmless (see, People v Wood, 66 NY2d 374 ). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Gilbert v. Rothschild
green
1 sentence1948The parties may have a separate trial with respect to the issues raised by the defense of a general release (Gilbert v. Rothschild, 280 N. Y. 66 ; Barry v. Lewis, 259 App. Div. 496 ). | 1 | 1948–1948 |
Barker v. Conley
green
1 sentence1948If, instead of pleading, th'e defendant adopts the alternative course, and moves pursuant to subdivision 7 of rule 107 of the Rules of Civil Practice, to dismiss the complaint, because the cause of action has been released, the court may, pursuant to rule 108 of the Rules of Civil Practice, order a separate trial on the issue of fact as to the validity and applicability of such general release, in connection with which a jury may be demanded (Barker v. Conley, 267 N. Y. 43 ). .Following such a trial, the findings of the court or the jury must be reported to Special Term for its action (Campbel | 1 | 1948–1948 |
Campbell v. Muncie
neutral
1 sentence1948If, instead of pleading, th'e defendant adopts the alternative course, and moves pursuant to subdivision 7 of rule 107 of the Rules of Civil Practice, to dismiss the complaint, because the cause of action has been released, the court may, pursuant to rule 108 of the Rules of Civil Practice, order a separate trial on the issue of fact as to the validity and applicability of such general release, in connection with which a jury may be demanded (Barker v. Conley, 267 N. Y. 43 ). .Following such a trial, the findings of the court or the jury must be reported to Special Term for its action (Campbel | 1 | 1948–1948 |
Barry v. Lewis
green
1 sentence1948The parties may have a separate trial with respect to the issues raised by the defense of a general release (Gilbert v. Rothschild, 280 N. Y. 66 ; Barry v. Lewis, 259 App. Div. 496 ). | 1 | 1948–1948 |
Goss v. C. S. Goss & Co.
green
1 sentence1922(Goss v. Goss & Co., 126 App. Div. 748, 749 ; Rubenstein v. Radt, 133 id. 57, 60; Smith v. Western Pacific R. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
Konner v. State
neutral
1 sentence1920The state opposes this application on several grounds, and particularly on the authority of Konner v. State of New York, 180 App. Div. 837 . | 1 | 1920–1920 |
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.