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.
14 New York opinions name it 6 courts 1968–2026 1 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. Connorgreen1 sentence2026See, e.g. , People v. Connor , 63 NY2d 11 , 14—15 (1984) (concluding that a defendant's failure to object to the presence of hearsay in an instrument, and decision to nevertheless proceed to trial, amounted to a de facto waiver of the right to prosecution by information). | 1 | 1 |
Hawkins v. New York State Department of Corrections & Community Supervisiongreen1 sentence2018As such, our Court was faced with multiple parole denials, potentially resulting in life without parole, and a record reflecting "irrationality bordering on impropriety" ( Matter of Hawkins v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision , 140 AD3d at 40 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted] [Garry, J., [*4]concurring]), ostensibly creating a de facto violation of the Eighth Amendment. | 1 | 1 |
DeVita v. City of Poughkeepsiegreen1 sentence2005Contrary to Prol’s argument on appeal, the failure of the City to notify it that the sale of the tax lien occurred was not a de facto violation of its right to not be deprived of property without due process of law (see DeVita v City of Poughkeepsie, 296 AD2d 523, 525 [2002]). | 1 | 1 |
Lorisa Capital Corp. v. Gallogreen1 sentence2001In De George v Yusko ( 169 AD2d 865, 866-867 [3d Dept 1991]), it was held that in “New York, a corporation, during its delinquency and until it receives retroactive de jure status, is essentially legally dead and has no de facto existence.” In Lorisa Capital Corp. v Gallo ( 119 AD2d 99, 110-111 [2d Dept 1986]), it was held that “a delinquent corporation may not avail itself of the de facto doctrine to preclude third parties from challenging its capacity to sue * * * Moreover, a corporation’s de jure existence is removed for the very purpose of securing compliance with the tax statute. | 1 | 1 |
De George v. Yuskogreen1 sentence2001In De George v Yusko ( 169 AD2d 865, 866-867 [3d Dept 1991]), it was held that in “New York, a corporation, during its delinquency and until it receives retroactive de jure status, is essentially legally dead and has no de facto existence.” In Lorisa Capital Corp. v Gallo ( 119 AD2d 99, 110-111 [2d Dept 1986]), it was held that “a delinquent corporation may not avail itself of the de facto doctrine to preclude third parties from challenging its capacity to sue * * * Moreover, a corporation’s de jure existence is removed for the very purpose of securing compliance with the tax statute. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Conway v. Samet
green
2 sentences2005The court in rejecting this argument found that the legislative history indicated that this section was intended instead to codify the de facto doctrine in New York case law and the doctrine had been used by at least one court (Conway v Samet, 59 Misc 2d 666 [Sup Ct, Nassau County 1969]) following the amendment. 1980However, legislative history indicates that this section was in substance intended to codify the de facto doctrine as found in New York case law (NY Legis Doc, 1961, No. 12, p 61), and the doctrine has been used by at least one court following the amendment (see Conway v Samet, 59 Misc 2d 666, 669 ). | 2 | 1980–2005 |
The People v. . Petrea
green
2 sentences1976The rule was first stated in People v Petrea ( 92 NY 128, 143-144 ): "The jury which found the indictment was a de facto jury selected and organized under the forms of law. 1976(People v Petrea, supra [grand jurors drawn from list of petit jurors]; People v Youngs, 151 NY 210 ; People v Scannell, 37 Misc 345 ; People v Pizzimenti, 13 Misc 2d 82 [two grand jurors were government employees with salaries in excess of $1,000 per year]; People v Whalen, 26 Misc 2d 714 [Grand Jury foreman disqualified]; Matter of Pesner v County Ct. of County of Rockland, 42 AD2d 275 [improper extension of Grand Jury term]; People v White, 44 AD2d 749 [foreman a convicted felon]; People v AuClair, 74 Misc 2d 704 .) In the instant case there is no allegation of fraud or deprivation, and the | 2 | 1973–1976 |
Berkshire Engineering Corp. v. Scott-Paine
green
1 sentence2001Recognition of de facto status would directly subvert the effectiveness of the sanctions for franchise tax delinquency, removing all incentive for a dissolved corporation to seek reinstatement.” (See also Italian Mosaic & Marble Co. v City of Niagara Falls, 131 Misc 281 [Sup Ct, Niagara County 1928] [holding that a nonqualified foreign corporation may not have filed an enforceable lien with respect to a public improvement]; Berkshire Eng’g Corp. v Scott-Paine, 29 Misc 2d 1010 [Columbia County Ct 1961].) Accordingly, the motion of Sales to discharge the subject lien is granted. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Italian Mosaic & Marble Co. v. City of Niagara Falls
green
1 sentence2001Recognition of de facto status would directly subvert the effectiveness of the sanctions for franchise tax delinquency, removing all incentive for a dissolved corporation to seek reinstatement.” (See also Italian Mosaic & Marble Co. v City of Niagara Falls, 131 Misc 281 [Sup Ct, Niagara County 1928] [holding that a nonqualified foreign corporation may not have filed an enforceable lien with respect to a public improvement]; Berkshire Eng’g Corp. v Scott-Paine, 29 Misc 2d 1010 [Columbia County Ct 1961].) Accordingly, the motion of Sales to discharge the subject lien is granted. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
In re the Estate of Behr
green
1 sentence1994If there is any doubt, the motion to dismiss must be denied (Matter of Behr, supra). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Garzo v. Maid of the Mist Steamboat Co.
green
1 sentence1986De facto recognition requires both a good-faith exercise of corporate powers and colorable compliance with the enabling statute (see, Lattin, Corporations § 57, at 184 [2d Ed]; Corporate Tax Delinquency, 41 NYU L Rev 602, 613; Garzo v Maid of Mist Steamboat Co., 303 NY 516 [de facto status recognized where good-faith exercise of corporate powers, including the payment of dividends and taxes, followed inadvertent failure to timely file certificate extending corporate life under enabling statute]). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Perry v. Sindermann
green
1 sentence1983Petitioner argues that respondent, through its actions or inactions, “left his position in limbo” thereby creating a de facto claim to continued employment, terminable only after a hearing (see Perry v Sindermann, 408 US 593, 600 ). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Pesner v. County Court of Rockland
green
1 sentence1976(People v Petrea, supra [grand jurors drawn from list of petit jurors]; People v Youngs, 151 NY 210 ; People v Scannell, 37 Misc 345 ; People v Pizzimenti, 13 Misc 2d 82 [two grand jurors were government employees with salaries in excess of $1,000 per year]; People v Whalen, 26 Misc 2d 714 [Grand Jury foreman disqualified]; Matter of Pesner v County Ct. of County of Rockland, 42 AD2d 275 [improper extension of Grand Jury term]; People v White, 44 AD2d 749 [foreman a convicted felon]; People v AuClair, 74 Misc 2d 704 .) In the instant case there is no allegation of fraud or deprivation, and the | 1 | 1976–1976 |
People v. White
green
1 sentence1976(People v Petrea, supra [grand jurors drawn from list of petit jurors]; People v Youngs, 151 NY 210 ; People v Scannell, 37 Misc 345 ; People v Pizzimenti, 13 Misc 2d 82 [two grand jurors were government employees with salaries in excess of $1,000 per year]; People v Whalen, 26 Misc 2d 714 [Grand Jury foreman disqualified]; Matter of Pesner v County Ct. of County of Rockland, 42 AD2d 275 [improper extension of Grand Jury term]; People v White, 44 AD2d 749 [foreman a convicted felon]; People v AuClair, 74 Misc 2d 704 .) In the instant case there is no allegation of fraud or deprivation, and the | 1 | 1976–1976 |
People v. . Youngs
green
1 sentence1976(People v Petrea, supra [grand jurors drawn from list of petit jurors]; People v Youngs, 151 NY 210 ; People v Scannell, 37 Misc 345 ; People v Pizzimenti, 13 Misc 2d 82 [two grand jurors were government employees with salaries in excess of $1,000 per year]; People v Whalen, 26 Misc 2d 714 [Grand Jury foreman disqualified]; Matter of Pesner v County Ct. of County of Rockland, 42 AD2d 275 [improper extension of Grand Jury term]; People v White, 44 AD2d 749 [foreman a convicted felon]; People v AuClair, 74 Misc 2d 704 .) In the instant case there is no allegation of fraud or deprivation, and the | 1 | 1976–1976 |
People v. Pizzimenti
neutral
1 sentence1976(People v Petrea, supra [grand jurors drawn from list of petit jurors]; People v Youngs, 151 NY 210 ; People v Scannell, 37 Misc 345 ; People v Pizzimenti, 13 Misc 2d 82 [two grand jurors were government employees with salaries in excess of $1,000 per year]; People v Whalen, 26 Misc 2d 714 [Grand Jury foreman disqualified]; Matter of Pesner v County Ct. of County of Rockland, 42 AD2d 275 [improper extension of Grand Jury term]; People v White, 44 AD2d 749 [foreman a convicted felon]; People v AuClair, 74 Misc 2d 704 .) In the instant case there is no allegation of fraud or deprivation, and the | 1 | 1976–1976 |
People v. Whalen
green
1 sentence1976(People v Petrea, supra [grand jurors drawn from list of petit jurors]; People v Youngs, 151 NY 210 ; People v Scannell, 37 Misc 345 ; People v Pizzimenti, 13 Misc 2d 82 [two grand jurors were government employees with salaries in excess of $1,000 per year]; People v Whalen, 26 Misc 2d 714 [Grand Jury foreman disqualified]; Matter of Pesner v County Ct. of County of Rockland, 42 AD2d 275 [improper extension of Grand Jury term]; People v White, 44 AD2d 749 [foreman a convicted felon]; People v AuClair, 74 Misc 2d 704 .) In the instant case there is no allegation of fraud or deprivation, and the | 1 | 1976–1976 |
People v. AuClair
green
1 sentence1976(People v Petrea, supra [grand jurors drawn from list of petit jurors]; People v Youngs, 151 NY 210 ; People v Scannell, 37 Misc 345 ; People v Pizzimenti, 13 Misc 2d 82 [two grand jurors were government employees with salaries in excess of $1,000 per year]; People v Whalen, 26 Misc 2d 714 [Grand Jury foreman disqualified]; Matter of Pesner v County Ct. of County of Rockland, 42 AD2d 275 [improper extension of Grand Jury term]; People v White, 44 AD2d 749 [foreman a convicted felon]; People v AuClair, 74 Misc 2d 704 .) In the instant case there is no allegation of fraud or deprivation, and the | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Goss v. Lopez
green
1 sentence1976The application and interpretation of the due process clause are intensely practical matters (Goss v Lopez, supra, p 577 ). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
People v. Scannell
neutral
1 sentence1976(People v Petrea, supra [grand jurors drawn from list of petit jurors]; People v Youngs, 151 NY 210 ; People v Scannell, 37 Misc 345 ; People v Pizzimenti, 13 Misc 2d 82 [two grand jurors were government employees with salaries in excess of $1,000 per year]; People v Whalen, 26 Misc 2d 714 [Grand Jury foreman disqualified]; Matter of Pesner v County Ct. of County of Rockland, 42 AD2d 275 [improper extension of Grand Jury term]; People v White, 44 AD2d 749 [foreman a convicted felon]; People v AuClair, 74 Misc 2d 704 .) In the instant case there is no allegation of fraud or deprivation, and the | 1 | 1976–1976 |
The PEOPLE v. Hall
green
1 sentence1973Dunn v. Noyes, 87 Wis. 340 ; People v. Morgan, 133 Mich. 550 ; State v. Wescott, 194 Wis. 410 ; People v. Kaplan, 256 Mich. 36 ; People v. Hall, 16 Ill. 2d 223 ; Buchler v. District Ct. of County of Arapahoe, 158 Col. 205 ; State v. Brown, 195 Mo. App. 590 ). | 1 | 1973–1973 |
People v. Kaplan
green
2 sentences1973Dunn v. Noyes, 87 Wis. 340 ; People v. Morgan, 133 Mich. 550 ; State v. Wescott, 194 Wis. 410 ; People v. Kaplan, 256 Mich. 36 ; People v. Hall, 16 Ill. 2d 223 ; Buchler v. District Ct. of County of Arapahoe, 158 Col. 205 ; State v. Brown, 195 Mo. App. 590 ). 1973There cannot be a more appropriate application of the de facto doctrine than to such a body as a grand jury de facto while thus holding over and doing business in the October term of the court.” This construction has been followed in Michigan as well as in Wisconsin (People v. Kaplan, 256 Mich. 36 ; People v. Morgan, 133 Mich. 550 ; State v. Wescott, 194 Wis. 410 ). | 1 | 1973–1973 |
State v. Brown
neutral
1 sentence1973Dunn v. Noyes, 87 Wis. 340 ; People v. Morgan, 133 Mich. 550 ; State v. Wescott, 194 Wis. 410 ; People v. Kaplan, 256 Mich. 36 ; People v. Hall, 16 Ill. 2d 223 ; Buchler v. District Ct. of County of Arapahoe, 158 Col. 205 ; State v. Brown, 195 Mo. App. 590 ). | 1 | 1973–1973 |
State ex rel. Dunn v. Noyes
green
1 sentence1973Dunn v. Noyes, 87 Wis. 340 ; People v. Morgan, 133 Mich. 550 ; State v. Wescott, 194 Wis. 410 ; People v. Kaplan, 256 Mich. 36 ; People v. Hall, 16 Ill. 2d 223 ; Buchler v. District Ct. of County of Arapahoe, 158 Col. 205 ; State v. Brown, 195 Mo. App. 590 ). | 1 | 1973–1973 |
State v. Wescott
neutral
2 sentences1973Dunn v. Noyes, 87 Wis. 340 ; People v. Morgan, 133 Mich. 550 ; State v. Wescott, 194 Wis. 410 ; People v. Kaplan, 256 Mich. 36 ; People v. Hall, 16 Ill. 2d 223 ; Buchler v. District Ct. of County of Arapahoe, 158 Col. 205 ; State v. Brown, 195 Mo. App. 590 ). 1973There cannot be a more appropriate application of the de facto doctrine than to such a body as a grand jury de facto while thus holding over and doing business in the October term of the court.” This construction has been followed in Michigan as well as in Wisconsin (People v. Kaplan, 256 Mich. 36 ; People v. Morgan, 133 Mich. 550 ; State v. Wescott, 194 Wis. 410 ). | 1 | 1973–1973 |
People v. Morgan
neutral
2 sentences1973Dunn v. Noyes, 87 Wis. 340 ; People v. Morgan, 133 Mich. 550 ; State v. Wescott, 194 Wis. 410 ; People v. Kaplan, 256 Mich. 36 ; People v. Hall, 16 Ill. 2d 223 ; Buchler v. District Ct. of County of Arapahoe, 158 Col. 205 ; State v. Brown, 195 Mo. App. 590 ). 1973There cannot be a more appropriate application of the de facto doctrine than to such a body as a grand jury de facto while thus holding over and doing business in the October term of the court.” This construction has been followed in Michigan as well as in Wisconsin (People v. Kaplan, 256 Mich. 36 ; People v. Morgan, 133 Mich. 550 ; State v. Wescott, 194 Wis. 410 ). | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Lamming v. . Galusha
neutral
1 sentence1968If, on the other hand, as plaintiff urges, it is held that the de facto doctrine applies to a “ corporation ” that has taken all steps required of it to comply with the statutory requirements . of incorporation but whose certificate has not beep, filed by the Department of State, it follows, under the traditional view of the de facto doctrine, that such a corporation has legal existence and possesses the same rights, powers, duties and liabilities as a de jure corporation in relation to all persons except the State, including the right to sue and be sued in its corporate name (Lamming v. Galus | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Sacks v. Anne Realty Co.
green
1 sentence1968If, on the other hand, as plaintiff urges, it is held that the de facto doctrine applies to a “ corporation ” that has taken all steps required of it to comply with the statutory requirements . of incorporation but whose certificate has not beep, filed by the Department of State, it follows, under the traditional view of the de facto doctrine, that such a corporation has legal existence and possesses the same rights, powers, duties and liabilities as a de jure corporation in relation to all persons except the State, including the right to sue and be sued in its corporate name (Lamming v. Galus | 1 | 1968–1968 |
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.