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.
98 New York opinions name it 11 courts 1958–2026 8 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re Teniqua Y.green2 sentences2013Any delay in the commencement of the hearing was de minimis, and would have been obviated by merely recalling the case later that day, after the complainant had an opportunity to arrive in court (see Matter of Tierra H., 83 AD3d 837, 838 [2011]; Matter of Sheldon M., 48 AD3d 814, 815 [2008]; Matter of Teniqua Y., 299 AD2d 490, 491 [2002]; Matter of Iola C., 262 AD2d 558 [1999]). 2013Any delay in the commencement of the hearing was de minimis, and would have been obviated by merely recalling the case later that day, after the complainant had an opportunity to arrive in court (see Matter of Tierra H., 83 AD3d 837, 838 [2011]; Matter of Sheldon M., 48 AD3d 814, 815 [2008]; Matter of Teniqua Y., 299 AD2d 490, 491 [2002]; Matter of Iola C., 262 AD2d 558 [1999]). | 3 | 4 |
Gaudette v. Gaudettegreen2 sentences2019It is the court's responsibility to advise such a respondent of the right to counsel of his own choosing, or assigned counsel where appropriate, before the commencement of a hearing or other proceedings ( see Hickland v Hickland , 56 AD2d 978, 980 [1977]; see also Matter of Gaudette v Gaudette , 263 AD2d 620, 621 [1999]). 2019It is the court's responsibility to advise such a respondent of the right to counsel of his own choosing, or assigned counsel where appropriate, before the commencement of a hearing or other proceedings ( see Hickland v Hickland , 56 AD2d 978, 980 [1977]; see also Matter of Gaudette v Gaudette , 263 AD2d 620, 621 [1999]). | 3 | 3 |
In re Sheldon M.green2 sentences2013Any delay in the commencement of the hearing was de minimis, and would have been obviated by merely recalling the case later that day, after the complainant had an opportunity to arrive in court (see Matter of Tierra H., 83 AD3d 837, 838 [2011]; Matter of Sheldon M., 48 AD3d 814, 815 [2008]; Matter of Teniqua Y., 299 AD2d 490, 491 [2002]; Matter of Iola C., 262 AD2d 558 [1999]). 2013Any delay in the commencement of the hearing was de minimis, and would have been obviated by merely recalling the case later that day, after the complainant had an opportunity to arrive in court (see Matter of Tierra H., 83 AD3d 837, 838 [2011]; Matter of Sheldon M., 48 AD3d 814, 815 [2008]; Matter of Teniqua Y., 299 AD2d 490, 491 [2002]; Matter of Iola C., 262 AD2d 558 [1999]). | 3 | 3 |
Hickland v. Hicklandgreen2 sentences2019It is the court's responsibility to advise such a respondent of the right to counsel of his own choosing, or assigned counsel where appropriate, before the commencement of a hearing or other proceedings ( see Hickland v Hickland , 56 AD2d 978, 980 [1977]; see also Matter of Gaudette v Gaudette , 263 AD2d 620, 621 [1999]). 2019It is the court's responsibility to advise such a respondent of the right to counsel of his own choosing, or assigned counsel where appropriate, before the commencement of a hearing or other proceedings ( see Hickland v Hickland , 56 AD2d 978, 980 [1977]; see also Matter of Gaudette v Gaudette , 263 AD2d 620, 621 [1999]). | 2 | 2 |
In re Tierra H.green2 sentences2013Any delay in the commencement of the hearing was de minimis, and would have been obviated by merely recalling the case later that day, after the complainant had an opportunity to arrive in court (see Matter of Tierra H., 83 AD3d 837, 838 [2011]; Matter of Sheldon M., 48 AD3d 814, 815 [2008]; Matter of Teniqua Y., 299 AD2d 490, 491 [2002]; Matter of Iola C., 262 AD2d 558 [1999]). 2013Any delay in the commencement of the hearing was de minimis, and would have been obviated by merely recalling the case later that day, after the complainant had an opportunity to arrive in court (see Matter of Tierra H., 83 AD3d 837, 838 [2011]; Matter of Sheldon M., 48 AD3d 814, 815 [2008]; Matter of Teniqua Y., 299 AD2d 490, 491 [2002]; Matter of Iola C., 262 AD2d 558 [1999]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Garofologreen2 sentences2013Our dissenting colleague also notes that if this were a matter involving a defendant’s uncounseled waiver of her privilege against self-incrimination, the evidence obtained from a defendant pursuant to a knowing waiver of that constitutional right, prior to counsel’s entry in the matter, would not be subject to suppression (see People v Garofolo, 46 NY2d at 601-602). 2013Our dissenting colleague also notes that if this were a matter involving a defendant’s uncounseled waiver of her privilege against self-incrimination, the evidence obtained from a defendant pursuant to a knowing waiver of that constitutional right, prior to counsel’s entry in the matter, would not be subject to suppression (see People v Garofolo, 46 NY2d at 601-602). | 2 | 2 |
Myers v. Markeygreen2 sentences2012In light of the fact that the mother did not have notice that the terms of her visitation would be an issue during this proceeding, the modification of the prior order must be reversed (see Matter of Revet v Revet, 90 AD3d 1175, 1176 [2011]; Matter of Myers v Markey, 74 AD3d 1344, 1345 [2010]). 2012In light of the fact that the mother did not have notice that the terms of her visitation would be an issue during this proceeding, the modification of the prior order must be reversed (see Matter of Revet v Revet, 90 AD3d 1175, 1176 [2011]; Matter of Myers v Markey, 74 AD3d 1344, 1345 [2010]). | 2 | 2 |
Revet v. Revetgreen2 sentences2012In light of the fact that the mother did not have notice that the terms of her visitation would be an issue during this proceeding, the modification of the prior order must be reversed (see Matter of Revet v Revet, 90 AD3d 1175, 1176 [2011]; Matter of Myers v Markey, 74 AD3d 1344, 1345 [2010]). 2012In light of the fact that the mother did not have notice that the terms of her visitation would be an issue during this proceeding, the modification of the prior order must be reversed (see Matter of Revet v Revet, 90 AD3d 1175, 1176 [2011]; Matter of Myers v Markey, 74 AD3d 1344, 1345 [2010]). | 2 | 2 |
In re Iola C.green2 sentences2013Any delay in the commencement of the hearing was de minimis, and would have been obviated by merely recalling the case later that day, after the complainant had an opportunity to arrive in court (see Matter of Tierra H., 83 AD3d 837, 838 [2011]; Matter of Sheldon M., 48 AD3d 814, 815 [2008]; Matter of Teniqua Y., 299 AD2d 490, 491 [2002]; Matter of Iola C., 262 AD2d 558 [1999]). 2013Any delay in the commencement of the hearing was de minimis, and would have been obviated by merely recalling the case later that day, after the complainant had an opportunity to arrive in court (see Matter of Tierra H., 83 AD3d 837, 838 [2011]; Matter of Sheldon M., 48 AD3d 814, 815 [2008]; Matter of Teniqua Y., 299 AD2d 490, 491 [2002]; Matter of Iola C., 262 AD2d 558 [1999]). | 1 | 5 |
In re Stephen H.green2 sentences2011Accordingly, it was error to dismiss the petition (see Matter of Sheldon M., 48 AD3d 814, 815 [2008]; Matter of Teniqua Y., 299 AD2d 490, 491 [2002]; Matter of Iola C., 262 AD2d 558 [1999]; see also Matter of Stephen H., 251 AD2d 664, 665 [1998]). 2008Accordingly, it was error to dismiss the petitions on that basis (see Matter of Teniqua Y., 299 AD2d 490 [2002]; Matter of lola C., 262 AD2d 558, 559 [1999]; Matter of Latoya McD., 262 AD2d 564 [1999]; Matter of Stephen H., 251 AD2d 664 [1998]; Matter of Lawrence C., 152 AD2d 693, 694 [1989]). | 1 | 3 |
In re Lawrence C.green2 sentences2008Accordingly, it was error to dismiss the petitions on that basis (see Matter of Teniqua Y., 299 AD2d 490 [2002]; Matter of lola C., 262 AD2d 558, 559 [1999]; Matter of Latoya McD., 262 AD2d 564 [1999]; Matter of Stephen H., 251 AD2d 664 [1998]; Matter of Lawrence C., 152 AD2d 693, 694 [1989]). 2002Accordingly, it was error to dismiss the proceeding on that basis (see Matter of Iola C., 262 AD2d 558 ; see also Matter of David G., 249 AD2d 50, 51 ; Matter of Stephen H., 251 AD2d 664 , 665; Matter of Lawrence C., 152 AD2d 693, 694 ). | 1 | 2 |
Taylor v. Coughlingreen2 sentences2005Petitioner has failed to demonstrate any prejudice arising from the delay in the commencement of his hearing (see Matter of Granger v Goord, 6 AD3d 902, 902 [2004]; Matter of Taylor v Coughlin, 135 AD2d 992, 993 [1987]. 1991While there was a delay in the commencement of the hearing, such delay was authorized because of petitioner’s transfer from one facility to another on May 29, 1990 (see, Matter of Taylor v Coughlin, 135 AD2d 992, 993 ; see also, Matter of Vogelsang v Coombe, 66 NY2d 835 , affg 105 AD2d 913 ). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Rodneygreen1 sentence2026Criminal Procedure Law § 710.30 (1) (a) requires the People to provide notice, within 15 days of arraignment of an accused person's statements to law enforcement that the People intend to introduce at trial. "[T]he 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]), "to give a defendant adequate time to prepare his case for questioning the voluntariness of a confession or an admission," and to "afford[ ] d | 1 | 1 |
People v. Briggsgreen1 sentence2026Criminal Procedure Law § 710.30 (1) (a) requires the People to provide notice, within 15 days of arraignment of an accused person's statements to law enforcement that the People intend to introduce at trial. "[T]he 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]), "to give a defendant adequate time to prepare his case for questioning the voluntariness of a confession or an admission," and to "afford[ ] d | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Sheena PP. v. Edward QQ.green1 sentence2025Accordingly, the father failed to demonstrate that counsel did not have legitimate strategic reasons for questioning the caseworker in this manner ( see Matter of Sheena PP. v Edward QQ. , 238 AD3d at 1421; Matter of Dianne SS. v Jamie TT. , 235 AD3d 1138 , 1144 [3d Dept 2025]). [FN3] The father also argues that his counsel was ineffective for failing to review K.H.'s videotaped statements prior to the commencement of the hearing. | 1 | 1 |
Rueda v. Charmaine D.green1 sentence2024At the commencement of the hearing on September 1, 2022, counsel for CMC requested a combined hearing addressing both petitioner's emergency status under Mental Hygiene Law § 9.39 and the involuntary admission on medical certification under Mental Hygiene Law § 9.27, while utilizing the more "stringent standard" applicable to a section 9.39 hearing ( Matter of Rueda v Charmaine D. , 17 NY3d 522, 530-531 [2011]). | 1 | 1 |
| Black v. Romanogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lashway v. Fischergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Matter of Shearer v. Annuccigreen | 1 | 1 |
| Miller v. State of New Yorkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bottom v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mancheski v. Gabelli Group Capital Partnersgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Di Francesco v. Comptroller of New Yorkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Decker v. McCallgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Berry v. Portuondogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Cepeda v. Goordgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gomez v. Fischergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Pante v. Goordgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Narayangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Leotta v. Haslgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hendry v. Hiltongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Parkinson v. Selskygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Russell v. Selskygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Purcell v. McKoygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Chaney v. Goordgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bilbrew v. Goordgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Knights v. Knightsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bates v. Coughlingreen | 1 | 1 |
| Finley v. Goordgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Eppsgreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re Robert B.
green
2 sentences1997There is no statutory requirement that the presentment agency have every essential witness available to testify at the commencement of the hearing (Matter of Anthony H., 219 AD2d 436 ; Matter of Robert B., 187 AD2d 347 ). 1997It is clear that the instant fact-finding hearing could have been timely commenced with the testimony of Police Officer Smith, and then adjourned for a short interval, to accommodate Police Officer Steffans and the person in control of the apartment, who was scheduled to return from his honeymoon on July 25, 1995 (see, Matter of Robert B., supra; Matter of Jamar B., 220 AD2d 661 ; Matter of Anthony H., 219 AD2d 436 ). | 3 | 1996–1997 |
Lichtenstein v. State
green
2 sentences2023Court of Claims Act § 10(2) and (3), which concern wrongful death and personal injury claims, respectively, contemplate the formal appointment of an executor or administrator before the commencement of a claim against the State to recover damages for the same ( see Lichtenstein v State of New York , 93 NY2d at 913 ; Kiesow v State of New York , 161 AD3d 1060 , 1061-1062; Thomas v State of New York , 57 AD3d 969, 970 ). 2008Relevant to this appeal, Court of Claims Act § 10 (2) and (3), which concern wrongful death claims and personal injury claims, respectively, contemplate the formal appointment of an executor or administrator before the commencement of a claim against the State to recover damages for the same (see Lichtenstein v State of New York, 93 NY2d at 913 ). | 2 | 2008–2023 |
In re Sharnell J.
neutral
2 sentences2002Insofar as appellant challenges delays that occurred after the commencement of the hearing, “[a]ny adjournment granted after commencement did not implicate the appellant’s right to a speedy fact-finding hearing.” (Matter of Ango H., 286 AD2d 500, 501 , citing Matter of Sharnell J., 237 AD2d 290 .) The plain language of Family Court Act § 340.1 addresses the commencement, and not the completion, of fact-finding hearings, and the granting of continuances after a proceeding has begun is addressed to the court’s sound discretion (see, Matter of Eric W., 68 NY2d 633, 636 ; People v Foy, 32 NY2d 473 1998Family Court Act § 340.1 sets time limits for the commencement of a fact-finding hearing, not for its completion, and there is no requirement that the agency have all of its witnesses available to testify at the commencement of the hearing (see, Matter of Delila M., 238 AD2d 342 ; Matter of Sharnell J., 237 AD2d 290 ; Matter of Malik Y., 231 AD2d 731 ). | 2 | 1998–2002 |
Llull v. Coombe
green
2 sentences2001Any error in the alleged failure to provide petitioner with assistance prior to the commencement of the hearing was rectified when the hearing was adjourned and petitioner was provided with assistance (see, Matter of Llull v Coombe, 238 AD2d 761 , lv denied 90 NY2d 804 ). 1997At the commencement of the hearing, petitioner was provided with all of the relevant and available documents which he could not access on his own (see, Matter of Llull v Coombe, 238 AD2d 761, 762 , lv denied 90 NY2d 804 ). | 2 | 1997–2001 |
In re Anthony H.
green
2 sentences1997It is clear that the instant fact-finding hearing could have been timely commenced with the testimony of Police Officer Smith, and then adjourned for a short interval, to accommodate Police Officer Steffans and the person in control of the apartment, who was scheduled to return from his honeymoon on July 25, 1995 (see, Matter of Robert B., supra; Matter of Jamar B., 220 AD2d 661 ; Matter of Anthony H., 219 AD2d 436 ). 1997There is no statutory requirement that the presentment agency have every essential witness available to testify at the commencement of the hearing (Matter of Anthony H., 219 AD2d 436 ; Matter of Robert B., 187 AD2d 347 ). | 2 | 1997–1997 |
In re Jamar B.
neutral
2 sentences1997The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting brief continuances to the presentment agency, which delayed the conclusion of the hearing only until June 12, 1995 (see, Matter of Bryant J., 195 AD2d 463 ), nor were the appellant’s rights under Family Court Act § 340.1 violated thereby (see, Matter of Jamar B., 220 AD2d 661 ). 1997It is clear that the instant fact-finding hearing could have been timely commenced with the testimony of Police Officer Smith, and then adjourned for a short interval, to accommodate Police Officer Steffans and the person in control of the apartment, who was scheduled to return from his honeymoon on July 25, 1995 (see, Matter of Robert B., supra; Matter of Jamar B., 220 AD2d 661 ; Matter of Anthony H., 219 AD2d 436 ). | 2 | 1997–1997 |
People v. Rosario
green
2 sentences1992Prior to the commencement of the hearing herein, the court informed the parties that consideration would be given to any possible Rosario violation (People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286 ). 1987(See, People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286 , rearg denied 9 NY2d 908 , cert denied 368 US 866 , rearg denied 14 NY2d 876 , rearg denied 15 NY2d 765 .) The Assistant District Attorney opposed the application. | 2 | 1987–1992 |
Sarkisian Bros. v. State Division of Human Rights
green
2 sentences1981While we agree that the lengthy period of time between the commencement of the hearing and the determination and order of the division is not satisfactorily explained, delay alone will not ordinarily operate to oust the division of jurisdiction absent some showing of substantial prejudice (see Matter of Sarkisian Bros. v State Div. of Human Rights, 48 NY2d 816, 818 ). 1981Although it has been held that these time limits are not mandatory absent a showing of prejudice (see Matter of Sarkisian Bros. v State Div. of Human Rights, 48 NY2d 816 ), “[s]uch is the law where relatively minor delays occur. | 2 | 1981–1981 |
Matter of Dianne SS. v. Jamie TT.
green
1 sentence2025Accordingly, the father failed to demonstrate that counsel did not have legitimate strategic reasons for questioning the caseworker in this manner ( see Matter of Sheena PP. v Edward QQ. , 238 AD3d at 1421; Matter of Dianne SS. v Jamie TT. , 235 AD3d 1138 , 1144 [3d Dept 2025]). [FN3] The father also argues that his counsel was ineffective for failing to review K.H.'s videotaped statements prior to the commencement of the hearing. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Matter of Alfieri v. Bravo
green
1 sentence2025NO. 44 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2025 validation and invalidating petitions, and he therefore " ... had adequate notice of the invalidating petitioners' grounds for objecting to the additional signatures identified in their bill of particulars to enable him to prepare his defense" (Alfieri v Bravo, 172 AD3d 1360 , 1364 [2d Dept 2019]). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Matter of Matthews v. Annucci
neutral
1 sentence2025Under the circumstances, as petitioner did not renew his request for the dental assistant or object to her not being called, we find that petitioner did not preserve his claim ( see Matter of Matthews v Annucci , 175 AD3d 1713 , 1714 [3d Dept 2019]; Matter of Rodriguez v Lee , 162 AD3d 1453 , 1454 [3d Dept 2018[*2]]). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Thomas v. State
green
1 sentence2023Court of Claims Act § 10(2) and (3), which concern wrongful death and personal injury claims, respectively, contemplate the formal appointment of an executor or administrator before the commencement of a claim against the State to recover damages for the same ( see Lichtenstein v State of New York , 93 NY2d at 913 ; Kiesow v State of New York , 161 AD3d 1060 , 1061-1062; Thomas v State of New York , 57 AD3d 969, 970 ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Gagnon v. Scarpelli
red
1 sentence2022Thus, due process requirements are met so long as the defendant is given formal notice of the charges, an opportunity to be heard, and an initial adjournment of the hearing upon the defendant's request ( see CPL 410.30, 410.70 [1], [3]; Black v Romano , 471 US 606, 610-612 [1985]; Gagnon v Scarpelli , 411 US 778 [1973]; People v Oskroba , 305 NY 113 [1953]; People v Ebert , 18 AD3d 963 [2005]). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| People v. Ebert green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Oskroba
green
1 sentence2022Thus, due process requirements are met so long as the defendant is given formal notice of the charges, an opportunity to be heard, and an initial adjournment of the hearing upon the defendant's request ( see CPL 410.30, 410.70 [1], [3]; Black v Romano , 471 US 606, 610-612 [1985]; Gagnon v Scarpelli , 411 US 778 [1973]; People v Oskroba , 305 NY 113 [1953]; People v Ebert , 18 AD3d 963 [2005]). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Matter of Horsley v. Gonzalez neutral | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| People v. Toussaint green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Davidson v. State green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Bottom v. State green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Matter of Herson O.A. M. (Ana D.--Gloria E.M. L.) neutral | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| People v. Huntley green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Floyd Y. green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| People v. Pealer green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Mitchell v. Bezio green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Polite v. Goord green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Brown v. Selsky green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Commissioner of Social Services v. Darryl B. neutral | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Sicurella v. Embro green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| In re Latoya McD. green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Epps v. New York green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| People v. Johnson green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Tewksbury v. State green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Welch v. County of Westchester neutral | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Ferretti v. Town of Greenburgh green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Grant v. Richard neutral | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| E. K. v. State green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Gonzalez v. State green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.