108 New York opinions name it 10 courts 1939–2025 11 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. Bufordgreen2 sentences2013Defendant now contends that the court did not conduct a sufficient inquiry into the effect of these relationships on the juror’s impartiality (see People v Buford, 69 NY2d 290, 299 [1987]), but as he neither raised this claim at trial nor otherwise objected to the inquiry, the issue is unpreserved (see People v Hicks, 6 NY3d 737, 739 [2005]; People v Thompson, 92 AD3d 1139, 1141 [2012], lv granted 19 NY3d 977 [2012]; People v Cecunjanin, 67 AD3d 1072, 1077 [2009] , mod on other grounds 16 NY3d 488 [2011]; People v Kelly, 65 AD3d 714, 715 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 860 [2009]). 2006Rimes, citing People v Buford ( 69 NY2d 290, 299 [1987]), also contends that the court should have made a more detailed inquiry of the jurors to determine “what the juror[s] ha[d] seen, heard, or ha[d] acquired knowledge of.” We disagree. | 3 | 3 |
Prichep v. Prichepgreen2 sentences2023Unlike a final award of counsel fees, a detailed inquiry or evidentiary hearing is not required prior to an award of interim counsel fees ( see Vistocco v Jardine , 116 AD3d 842, 844 ; Prichep v Prichep , 52 AD3d 61, 65 ). 2020"Unlike a final award of counsel fees, a detailed inquiry or evidentiary [*16]hearing is not required prior to the award of interim counsel fees" ( Gaffney-Romanello v Romanello , 82 AD3d 930 ; see Isaacs v Isaacs , 71 AD3d 951 ; Prichep v Prichep , 52 AD3d at 65 ). | 2 | 8 |
Isaacs v. Isaacsgreen2 sentences2020"Unlike a final award of counsel fees, a detailed inquiry or evidentiary [*16]hearing is not required prior to the award of interim counsel fees" ( Gaffney-Romanello v Romanello , 82 AD3d 930 ; see Isaacs v Isaacs , 71 AD3d 951 ; Prichep v Prichep , 52 AD3d at 65 ). 2016Thus, interim fees are generally warranted “where there is a significant disparity in the financial circumstances of the parties” (Pr ichep, 52 AD3d at 65 ; see also DelDuca v DelDuca, 304 AD2d 610, 611 [2d Dept 2003]; Celauro v Celauro, 257 AD2d 588, 589 [2d Dept 1999]). “[U]nlike a final award of counsel fees, a detailed inquiry or evidentiary hearing is not required prior to the award of interim counsel fees” (Isaacs v Isaacs, 71 AD3d 951, 951 [2d Dept 2010]; see also Prichep, 52 AD3d at 65 ; Singer v Singer, 16 AD3d 666, 667 [2d Dept 2005]; Flach v Flach, 114 AD2d 929, 929 [2d Dept 1985]). | 2 | 3 |
DeCabrera v. Cabrera-Rosetegreen2 sentences2020"In determining whether to award final counsel fees at the end of trial, a more detailed inquiry is warranted and the court must review the financial circumstances of both parties together with all the other circumstances of the case, which may include the relative merit of the parties' positions'" ( Duval v Duval , 144 AD3d 739, 743 , quoting DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete , 70 NY2d 879, 881 ). 2019A more detailed analysis of the relative financial circumstances of the parties will be addressed after trial and any interim awards will ultimately be considered by the trial court in the context of an overall resolution of the parties' financial claims ( see Duvall v Duvall , 144 AD3d at 743 ; see also DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete , 70 NY2d 879, 881 ; Prichep v Prichep , 52 AD3d at 66 ). | 2 | 3 |
Centro Empresarial Cempresa S.A. v. América Móvil, S.A.B. de C.V.green2 sentences2023The court cited to the proper "fairly and knowingly made" standard ( Centro Empresarial Cempresa S.A. v AmÉrica MÓvil, S.A.B. de C.V. , 17 NY3d 269, 276 [2011] [internal quotation marks omitted]), and engaged in a detailed analysis of whether plaintiff had sufficiently alleged the existence of overreaching or unfair circumstances such that enforcement of the general releases would be inequitable. 2023The court cited to the proper "fairly and knowingly made" standard ( Centro Empresarial Cempresa S.A. v AmÉrica MÓvil, S.A.B. de C.V. , 17 NY3d 269, 276 [2011] [internal quotation marks omitted]), and engaged in a detailed analysis of whether plaintiff had sufficiently alleged the existence of overreaching or unfair circumstances such that enforcement of the general releases would be inequitable. | 2 | 2 |
In re Astorgreen2 sentences2014Under the circumstances presented here, since the record is insufficient to evaluate the merits of the asserted privilege, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for an in camera review of the allegedly privileged documents (see id. at 566-567), to be undertaken after the County has provided the court with a detailed privilege log (see CPLR 3211), “specifying] the nature of the contents of the [subject] documents, who prepared the records and the basis for the claimed privilege” (Matter of Subpoena Duces Tecum to Jane Doe, 99 NY2d 434, 442 [2003]; accord Matter of As 2014Under the circumstances presented here, since the record is insufficient to evaluate the merits of the asserted privilege, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for an in camera review of the allegedly privileged documents (see id. at 566-567), to be undertaken after the County has provided the court with a detailed privilege log (see CPLR 3211), “specifying] the nature of the contents of the [subject] documents, who prepared the records and the basis for the claimed privilege” (Matter of Subpoena Duces Tecum to Jane Doe, 99 NY2d 434, 442 [2003]; accord Matter of As | 2 | 2 |
State v. Carey Resources, Inc.green2 sentences2014Under the circumstances presented here, since the record is insufficient to evaluate the merits of the asserted privilege, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for an in camera review of the allegedly privileged documents (see id. at 566-567), to be undertaken after the County has provided the court with a detailed privilege log (see CPLR 3211), “specifying] the nature of the contents of the [subject] documents, who prepared the records and the basis for the claimed privilege” (Matter of Subpoena Duces Tecum to Jane Doe, 99 NY2d 434, 442 [2003]; accord Matter of As 2014Under the circumstances presented here, since the record is insufficient to evaluate the merits of the asserted privilege, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for an in camera review of the allegedly privileged documents (see id. at 566-567), to be undertaken after the County has provided the court with a detailed privilege log (see CPLR 3211), “specifying] the nature of the contents of the [subject] documents, who prepared the records and the basis for the claimed privilege” (Matter of Subpoena Duces Tecum to Jane Doe, 99 NY2d 434, 442 [2003]; accord Matter of As | 2 | 2 |
Kennedy v. Friedlandergreen2 sentences2014Under the circumstances presented here, since the record is insufficient to evaluate the merits of the asserted privilege, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for an in camera review of the allegedly privileged documents (see id. at 566-567), to be undertaken after the County has provided the court with a detailed privilege log (see CPLR 3211), “specifying] the nature of the contents of the [subject] documents, who prepared the records and the basis for the claimed privilege” (Matter of Subpoena Duces Tecum to Jane Doe, 99 NY2d 434, 442 [2003]; accord Matter of As 2014Under the circumstances presented here, since the record is insufficient to evaluate the merits of the asserted privilege, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for an in camera review of the allegedly privileged documents (see id. at 566-567), to be undertaken after the County has provided the court with a detailed privilege log (see CPLR 3211), “specifying] the nature of the contents of the [subject] documents, who prepared the records and the basis for the claimed privilege” (Matter of Subpoena Duces Tecum to Jane Doe, 99 NY2d 434, 442 [2003]; accord Matter of As | 2 | 2 |
Ural v. Encompass Insurance Co. of Americagreen2 sentences2014Under the circumstances presented here, since the record is insufficient to evaluate the merits of the asserted privilege, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for an in camera review of the allegedly privileged documents (see id. at 566-567), to be undertaken after the County has provided the court with a detailed privilege log (see CPLR 3211), “specifying] the nature of the contents of the [subject] documents, who prepared the records and the basis for the claimed privilege” (Matter of Subpoena Duces Tecum to Jane Doe, 99 NY2d 434, 442 [2003]; accord Matter of As 2014Under the circumstances presented here, since the record is insufficient to evaluate the merits of the asserted privilege, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for an in camera review of the allegedly privileged documents (see id. at 566-567), to be undertaken after the County has provided the court with a detailed privilege log (see CPLR 3211), “specifying] the nature of the contents of the [subject] documents, who prepared the records and the basis for the claimed privilege” (Matter of Subpoena Duces Tecum to Jane Doe, 99 NY2d 434, 442 [2003]; accord Matter of As | 2 | 2 |
Mtr. of Subpoena Duces Tecum to Jane Doegreen2 sentences2014Under the circumstances presented here, since the record is insufficient to evaluate the merits of the asserted privilege, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for an in camera review of the allegedly privileged documents (see id. at 566-567), to be undertaken after the County has provided the court with a detailed privilege log (see CPLR 3211), “specifying] the nature of the contents of the [subject] documents, who prepared the records and the basis for the claimed privilege” (Matter of Subpoena Duces Tecum to Jane Doe, 99 NY2d 434, 442 [2003]; accord Matter of As 2014Under the circumstances presented here, since the record is insufficient to evaluate the merits of the asserted privilege, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for an in camera review of the allegedly privileged documents (see id. at 566-567), to be undertaken after the County has provided the court with a detailed privilege log (see CPLR 3211), “specifying] the nature of the contents of the [subject] documents, who prepared the records and the basis for the claimed privilege” (Matter of Subpoena Duces Tecum to Jane Doe, 99 NY2d 434, 442 [2003]; accord Matter of As | 2 | 2 |
People v. Kellygreen2 sentences2013Defendant now contends that the court did not conduct a sufficient inquiry into the effect of these relationships on the juror’s impartiality (see People v Buford, 69 NY2d 290, 299 [1987]), but as he neither raised this claim at trial nor otherwise objected to the inquiry, the issue is unpreserved (see People v Hicks, 6 NY3d 737, 739 [2005]; People v Thompson, 92 AD3d 1139, 1141 [2012], lv granted 19 NY3d 977 [2012]; People v Cecunjanin, 67 AD3d 1072, 1077 [2009] , mod on other grounds 16 NY3d 488 [2011]; People v Kelly, 65 AD3d 714, 715 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 860 [2009]). 2013Defendant now contends that the court did not conduct a sufficient inquiry into the effect of these relationships on the juror’s impartiality (see People v Buford, 69 NY2d 290, 299 [1987]), but as he neither raised this claim at trial nor otherwise objected to the inquiry, the issue is unpreserved (see People v Hicks, 6 NY3d 737, 739 [2005]; People v Thompson, 92 AD3d 1139, 1141 [2012], lv granted 19 NY3d 977 [2012]; People v Cecunjanin, 67 AD3d 1072, 1077 [2009] , mod on other grounds 16 NY3d 488 [2011]; People v Kelly, 65 AD3d 714, 715 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 860 [2009]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Cecunjaningreen2 sentences2013Defendant now contends that the court did not conduct a sufficient inquiry into the effect of these relationships on the juror’s impartiality (see People v Buford, 69 NY2d 290, 299 [1987]), but as he neither raised this claim at trial nor otherwise objected to the inquiry, the issue is unpreserved (see People v Hicks, 6 NY3d 737, 739 [2005]; People v Thompson, 92 AD3d 1139, 1141 [2012], lv granted 19 NY3d 977 [2012]; People v Cecunjanin, 67 AD3d 1072, 1077 [2009] , mod on other grounds 16 NY3d 488 [2011]; People v Kelly, 65 AD3d 714, 715 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 860 [2009]). 2013Defendant now contends that the court did not conduct a sufficient inquiry into the effect of these relationships on the juror’s impartiality (see People v Buford, 69 NY2d 290, 299 [1987]), but as he neither raised this claim at trial nor otherwise objected to the inquiry, the issue is unpreserved (see People v Hicks, 6 NY3d 737, 739 [2005]; People v Thompson, 92 AD3d 1139, 1141 [2012], lv granted 19 NY3d 977 [2012]; People v Cecunjanin, 67 AD3d 1072, 1077 [2009] , mod on other grounds 16 NY3d 488 [2011]; People v Kelly, 65 AD3d 714, 715 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 860 [2009]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Thompsongreen2 sentences2013Defendant now contends that the court did not conduct a sufficient inquiry into the effect of these relationships on the juror’s impartiality (see People v Buford, 69 NY2d 290, 299 [1987]), but as he neither raised this claim at trial nor otherwise objected to the inquiry, the issue is unpreserved (see People v Hicks, 6 NY3d 737, 739 [2005]; People v Thompson, 92 AD3d 1139, 1141 [2012], lv granted 19 NY3d 977 [2012]; People v Cecunjanin, 67 AD3d 1072, 1077 [2009] , mod on other grounds 16 NY3d 488 [2011]; People v Kelly, 65 AD3d 714, 715 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 860 [2009]). 2013Defendant now contends that the court did not conduct a sufficient inquiry into the effect of these relationships on the juror’s impartiality (see People v Buford, 69 NY2d 290, 299 [1987]), but as he neither raised this claim at trial nor otherwise objected to the inquiry, the issue is unpreserved (see People v Hicks, 6 NY3d 737, 739 [2005]; People v Thompson, 92 AD3d 1139, 1141 [2012], lv granted 19 NY3d 977 [2012]; People v Cecunjanin, 67 AD3d 1072, 1077 [2009] , mod on other grounds 16 NY3d 488 [2011]; People v Kelly, 65 AD3d 714, 715 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 860 [2009]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Waltersgreen2 sentences2013After a detailed inquiry, the court determined that the juror was related to defendant and also to defendant’s wife — a prospective witness — in such a manner that he would have been subject to a challenge for cause if these relationships had been known before he was sworn (see CPL 270.20 [1] [c]; People v Walters, 12 AD3d 953, 954 [2004]). 2013After a detailed inquiry, the court determined that the juror was related to defendant and also to defendant’s wife — a prospective witness — in such a manner that he would have been subject to a challenge for cause if these relationships had been known before he was sworn (see CPL 270.20 [1] [c]; People v Walters, 12 AD3d 953, 954 [2004]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Hicksgreen2 sentences2013Defendant now contends that the court did not conduct a sufficient inquiry into the effect of these relationships on the juror’s impartiality (see People v Buford, 69 NY2d 290, 299 [1987]), but as he neither raised this claim at trial nor otherwise objected to the inquiry, the issue is unpreserved (see People v Hicks, 6 NY3d 737, 739 [2005]; People v Thompson, 92 AD3d 1139, 1141 [2012], lv granted 19 NY3d 977 [2012]; People v Cecunjanin, 67 AD3d 1072, 1077 [2009] , mod on other grounds 16 NY3d 488 [2011]; People v Kelly, 65 AD3d 714, 715 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 860 [2009]). 2013Defendant now contends that the court did not conduct a sufficient inquiry into the effect of these relationships on the juror’s impartiality (see People v Buford, 69 NY2d 290, 299 [1987]), but as he neither raised this claim at trial nor otherwise objected to the inquiry, the issue is unpreserved (see People v Hicks, 6 NY3d 737, 739 [2005]; People v Thompson, 92 AD3d 1139, 1141 [2012], lv granted 19 NY3d 977 [2012]; People v Cecunjanin, 67 AD3d 1072, 1077 [2009] , mod on other grounds 16 NY3d 488 [2011]; People v Kelly, 65 AD3d 714, 715 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 860 [2009]). | 2 | 2 |
Williams v. Fischergreen2 sentences2012Significantly, petitioner was provided the appropriate information regarding, among other things, the date, time and location of the assault, which he then used to present a detailed defense at the hearing (see Matter of Williams v Fischer, 93 AD3d 1051, 1052 [2012]). 2012Significantly, petitioner was provided the appropriate information regarding, among other things, the date, time and location of the assault, which he then used to present a detailed defense at the hearing (see Matter of Williams v Fischer, 93 AD3d 1051, 1052 [2012]). | 2 | 2 |
Hunt v. Odd Job Tradinggreen2 sentences2012Although Encompass also failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that certain discovery demands involved undiscoverable trade secrets (see Hunt v Odd Job Trading, 44 AD3d 714, 716 [2007]), aside from the claim file, the remaining discovery demands were nevertheless palpably improper in that they were overbroad, lacked specificity, or sought irrelevant information. 2012Although Encompass also failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that certain discovery demands involved undiscoverable trade secrets (see Hunt v Odd Job Trading, 44 AD3d 714, 716 [2007]), aside from the claim file, the remaining discovery demands were nevertheless palpably improper in that they were overbroad, lacked specificity, or sought irrelevant information. | 2 | 2 |
Guilderland Center Nursing Home, Inc. v. Town of Guilderland Board of Assessment Reviewgreen2 sentences2003Nursing Home v Town of Guilderland Bd. of Assessment Review, 195 AD2d 902, 903 [1993]; see Matter of Lia v Town of Niskayuna, 300 AD2d 876, 878 [2002]; Matter of Fistraw-Del Holding Corp. v Assessor for Town of Colonie, 235 AD2d 660, 662 [1997]). 2002Nursing Home v Town of Guilderland Bd. of Assessment Review, 195 AD2d 902, 903 ). | 1 | 3 |
Rosenbaum v. Rosenbaumgreen2 sentences2023Under the circumstances presented here, including the disparity of income between the parties, the plaintiff's litigation tactics, and the evidence showing that the defendant lacked the resources necessary to continue litigating the action, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendant's motion for an award of interim counsel fees to the extent of directing the plaintiff to pay the sum of $20,000 to the defendant's counsel ( see Domestic Relations Law § 237[a]; Doscher v Doscher , 137 AD3d 962, 965 ; Rosenbaum v Rosenbaum , 55 AD3d 713, 714 ; Prichep v Priche 2011Here, based on the apparent disparity in the parties’ relative financial positions, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in awarding interim counsel fees to the plaintiff (see Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]; Rosenbaum v Rosenbaum, 55 AD3d 713, 714 [2008]; Prichep v Prichep, 52 AD3d at 65-66 ). | 1 | 2 |
Jackson v. New York State Urban Development Corp.green2 sentences2017In assessing both the dangers of construction noise and the most appropriate mitigation measures, DOH acted within its "considerable latitude in evaluating environmental effects and choosing among alternatives" ( id. ). 1999Corp., supra, at 415-416, 429). | 1 | 2 |
Flach v. Flachgreen2 sentences2016Thus, interim fees are generally warranted “where there is a significant disparity in the financial circumstances of the parties” (Pr ichep, 52 AD3d at 65 ; see also DelDuca v DelDuca, 304 AD2d 610, 611 [2d Dept 2003]; Celauro v Celauro, 257 AD2d 588, 589 [2d Dept 1999]). “[U]nlike a final award of counsel fees, a detailed inquiry or evidentiary hearing is not required prior to the award of interim counsel fees” (Isaacs v Isaacs, 71 AD3d 951, 951 [2d Dept 2010]; see also Prichep, 52 AD3d at 65 ; Singer v Singer, 16 AD3d 666, 667 [2d Dept 2005]; Flach v Flach, 114 AD2d 929, 929 [2d Dept 1985]). 2010In any event, unlike a final award of counsel fees, a detailed inquiry or evidentiary hearing is not required prior to the award of interim counsel fees (see Prichep v Prichep, 52 AD3d at 65 ; Singer v Singer, 16 AD3d 666 [2005]; Flach v Flach, 114 AD2d 929 [1985]). | 1 | 2 |
Singer v. Singergreen2 sentences2016Thus, interim fees are generally warranted “where there is a significant disparity in the financial circumstances of the parties” (Pr ichep, 52 AD3d at 65 ; see also DelDuca v DelDuca, 304 AD2d 610, 611 [2d Dept 2003]; Celauro v Celauro, 257 AD2d 588, 589 [2d Dept 1999]). “[U]nlike a final award of counsel fees, a detailed inquiry or evidentiary hearing is not required prior to the award of interim counsel fees” (Isaacs v Isaacs, 71 AD3d 951, 951 [2d Dept 2010]; see also Prichep, 52 AD3d at 65 ; Singer v Singer, 16 AD3d 666, 667 [2d Dept 2005]; Flach v Flach, 114 AD2d 929, 929 [2d Dept 1985]). 2010In any event, unlike a final award of counsel fees, a detailed inquiry or evidentiary hearing is not required prior to the award of interim counsel fees (see Prichep v Prichep, 52 AD3d at 65 ; Singer v Singer, 16 AD3d 666 [2005]; Flach v Flach, 114 AD2d 929 [1985]). | 1 | 2 |
| MATTER OF CASSANO v. Cassanogreen | 1 | 2 |
| Danaipour v. McLareygreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Humphreygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Goohya v. Walsh-Tozergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Pereira v. Quogue Field Clubgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Johnson v. City of New Yorkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United Parcel Service v. Assessor of the Town of Coloniegreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Middletongreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Tuckergreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Dodsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Smithgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Shielsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Matter of Ryan v. Alexandergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Matter of Graham v. Rawleygreen | 1 | 1 |
| City of New York v. Granite State Insurance Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Youngbloodgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Woodsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Tineogreen | 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. Page
green
2 sentences1992Although it would have been preferable for the trial court to have conducted a more detailed inquiry of the juror’s inability to serve (see, People v Page, 72 NY2d 69 ; People v Garry, 176 AD2d 145 ; People v Allen, 163 AD2d 396 ), we conclude that the court was warranted in determining that the juror was "unavailable for continued service” within the meaning of the statute (CPL 270.35; see, People v Moore, 177 AD2d 653 ; People v Velasquez, 171 AD2d 825 ; People v McDonald, 143 AD2d 1050 ). 1990However, we again take this opportunity to emphasize that it would have been preferable for the trial court to have conducted a more detailed inquiry pursuant to CPL 270.35 of the circumstances of these jurors’ inability to serve (see, People v Page, supra; People v Lawrence, 143 AD2d 1045 ). | 3 | 1988–1992 |
Duval v. Duval
green
2 sentences2020"In determining whether to award final counsel fees at the end of trial, a more detailed inquiry is warranted and the court must review the financial circumstances of both parties together with all the other circumstances of the case, which may include the relative merit of the parties' positions'" ( Duval v Duval , 144 AD3d 739, 743 , quoting DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete , 70 NY2d 879, 881 ). 2019A more detailed analysis of the relative financial circumstances of the parties will be addressed after trial and any interim awards will ultimately be considered by the trial court in the context of an overall resolution of the parties' financial claims ( see Duvall v Duvall , 144 AD3d at 743 ; see also DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete , 70 NY2d 879, 881 ; Prichep v Prichep , 52 AD3d at 66 ). | 2 | 2019–2020 |
People v. Harry
green
2 sentences2013Defendant now contends that the court did not conduct a sufficient inquiry into the effect of these relationships on the juror’s impartiality (see People v Buford, 69 NY2d 290, 299 [1987]), but as he neither raised this claim at trial nor otherwise objected to the inquiry, the issue is unpreserved (see People v Hicks, 6 NY3d 737, 739 [2005]; People v Thompson, 92 AD3d 1139, 1141 [2012], lv granted 19 NY3d 977 [2012]; People v Cecunjanin, 67 AD3d 1072, 1077 [2009] , mod on other grounds 16 NY3d 488 [2011]; People v Kelly, 65 AD3d 714, 715 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 860 [2009]). 2013Defendant now contends that the court did not conduct a sufficient inquiry into the effect of these relationships on the juror’s impartiality (see People v Buford, 69 NY2d 290, 299 [1987]), but as he neither raised this claim at trial nor otherwise objected to the inquiry, the issue is unpreserved (see People v Hicks, 6 NY3d 737, 739 [2005]; People v Thompson, 92 AD3d 1139, 1141 [2012], lv granted 19 NY3d 977 [2012]; People v Cecunjanin, 67 AD3d 1072, 1077 [2009] , mod on other grounds 16 NY3d 488 [2011]; People v Kelly, 65 AD3d 714, 715 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 860 [2009]). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Cecunjanin
green
2 sentences2013Defendant now contends that the court did not conduct a sufficient inquiry into the effect of these relationships on the juror’s impartiality (see People v Buford, 69 NY2d 290, 299 [1987]), but as he neither raised this claim at trial nor otherwise objected to the inquiry, the issue is unpreserved (see People v Hicks, 6 NY3d 737, 739 [2005]; People v Thompson, 92 AD3d 1139, 1141 [2012], lv granted 19 NY3d 977 [2012]; People v Cecunjanin, 67 AD3d 1072, 1077 [2009] , mod on other grounds 16 NY3d 488 [2011]; People v Kelly, 65 AD3d 714, 715 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 860 [2009]). 2013Defendant now contends that the court did not conduct a sufficient inquiry into the effect of these relationships on the juror’s impartiality (see People v Buford, 69 NY2d 290, 299 [1987]), but as he neither raised this claim at trial nor otherwise objected to the inquiry, the issue is unpreserved (see People v Hicks, 6 NY3d 737, 739 [2005]; People v Thompson, 92 AD3d 1139, 1141 [2012], lv granted 19 NY3d 977 [2012]; People v Cecunjanin, 67 AD3d 1072, 1077 [2009] , mod on other grounds 16 NY3d 488 [2011]; People v Kelly, 65 AD3d 714, 715 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 860 [2009]). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Wultz v. Islamic Republic of Iran
green
2 sentences2013Wultz I concluded that the tort is civil in nature, contrary to defendant’s argument; that the specific Israeli penal enactments at issue can be applied extraterritorially; that the complaint sufficiently alleged a duty that the bank owed to the plaintiffs, who were of the class intended to be protected by the enactments; and that the duty was breached ( 755 F Supp 2d at 67-69 ). 2013Wultz I concluded that the tort is civil in nature, contrary to defendant’s argument; that the specific Israeli penal enactments at issue can be applied extraterritorially; that the complaint sufficiently alleged a duty that the bank owed to the plaintiffs, who were of the class intended to be protected by the enactments; and that the duty was breached ( 755 F Supp 2d at 67-69 ). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Clark v. Clark
green
2 sentences2012Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to compel Encompass to produce the documents contained in the plaintiff’s claim file to the extent of directing Encompass to provide the Supreme Court with a detailed privilege log (see CPLR 3122; Clark v Clark, 93 AD3d 812 [2012]), and the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for an in camera review of the allegedly privileged documents. 2012Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to compel Encompass to produce the documents contained in the plaintiff’s claim file to the extent of directing Encompass to provide the Supreme Court with a detailed privilege log (see CPLR 3122; Clark v Clark, 93 AD3d 812 [2012]), and the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for an in camera review of the allegedly privileged documents. | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Bast v. Rossoff
green
2 sentences2010The Family Court granted the fourth objection to the extent of remanding the matter for further proceedings and a detailed analysis of the split custody issue and its effect, if any, on the order of child support pursuant to the principles set forth in Bast v Rossoff ( 91 NY2d 723 [1998]). 2001The explanation the court gave in its decision for departing from the statutory method was simply that “ [reference to the guidelines to determine additional child support would serve little purpose in this case.” However, even defendant’s counsel concedes in her brief that “when the Court below rejected the amount derived from the statutory formula, it should have set forth that amount in its written order.” While the trial court’s approach may have been proper under the purely discretionary child-support system that preceded its adoption, the CSSA was intended to replace the prior discretion | 2 | 2001–2010 |
MATTER OF TROPEA v. Tropea
green
2 sentences2009While Family Court did not set forth a detailed analysis of its reasoning, our review of the record enables us to make the necessary findings which support a determination that the mother’s relocation with the child—and, accordingly, the denial of the father’s petition for modification of primary residential custody—was in the child’s best interests (see id. at 741 ; Matter of Bobroff v Farwell, 57 AD3d 1284, 1285 [2008]; Matter of Bessette v Belton, 29 AD3d 1085, 1087 [2006]; Matter of Anson v Anson, 20 AD3d 603, 604 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 711 [2005]). 1997CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Although there was a significant body of law concerning the issue of relocation in existence prior to 1996, the Court of Appeals in March of 1996 issued its decision in Matter of Tropea v Tropea ( 87 NY2d 727 [1996]), wherein a detailed analysis of the factors to be used by trial courts was outlined. | 2 | 1997–2009 |
| Matter of Kandekore neutral | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| C.T. v. Brant green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Day v. Ahmed neutral | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Diaz v. Minhas Constr. Corp., LLC green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Matter of Elizabeth St. Garden, Inc. v. City of New York green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Friedman v. State of New York green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Ames v. City of New York green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Schindler v. City of New York green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Catherine C. v. Albany County Department of Social Services green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Vistocco v. Jardine green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Doscher v. Doscher green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Matter of Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Assessor of the Town of Queensbury green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Gardner v. Cason, Inc. green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Fredericks v. Fredericks green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Henery v. Henery green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Corriel v. Volkswagen of America, Inc. green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Padovano v. Teddy's Realty Associates, Ltd. neutral | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Romeo v. City of New York green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Congel v. Malfitano green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Morales v. Zherka green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Gelman v. Buehler green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Crawford v. Burkey neutral | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| People v. Wilson green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| People v. Smith green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| The People v. Stephen Pellegrino green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.