13 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1966–2020 0 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. Jingzhi Ligreen2 sentences2019The County Court denied the motion, and the denial was affirmed by this Court, which, without setting forth the factual details, determined that "the People's failure to disclose a particular document to the defense until after the trial [did] not warrant reversal, since [the defendant] failed to show that there was a reasonable possibility that the non-disclosure materially contributed to the result of the trial'" ( People v Ward , 116 AD3d at 992 , quoting CPL 240.75; see People v Jinghi Li , 104 AD3d 704 , 705). 2014Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the People’s failure to disclose a particular document to the defense until after the trial does not warrant reversal, since he failed to show that there was “a reasonable possibility that the non-disclosure materially contributed to the result of the trial” (CPL 240.75; see People v Jingzhi Li, 104 AD3d 704, 705 [2013]). | 3 | 3 |
Zuckerman v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2015In opposition to the motion, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to those claims (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). 2015In opposition to the motion, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to those claims (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). | 2 | 3 |
Matter of McDay v. Annuccigreen1 sentence2020Petitioner's contention that he received inadequate employee assistance because the assistant did not interview Steele is not preserved for our review as he did not raise this objection at the hearing or on administrative appeal ( see Matter of McDay v Annucci , 156 AD3d 1082, 1083 [2017]; Matter of Mendez v Annucci , 126 AD3d 1216, 1217 [2015]). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Mendez v. Annuccigreen1 sentence2020Petitioner's contention that he received inadequate employee assistance because the assistant did not interview Steele is not preserved for our review as he did not raise this objection at the hearing or on administrative appeal ( see Matter of McDay v Annucci , 156 AD3d 1082, 1083 [2017]; Matter of Mendez v Annucci , 126 AD3d 1216, 1217 [2015]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Browngreen1 sentence2016The written waiver and plea colloquy accordingly establish that defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal from *1266 his conviction and sentence (see People v Vellon, 128 AD3d 1274, 1274-1275 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1043 [2015]; People v Brown, 125 AD3d 1049, 1049 [2015]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Vellongreen1 sentence2016The written waiver and plea colloquy accordingly establish that defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal from *1266 his conviction and sentence (see People v Vellon, 128 AD3d 1274, 1274-1275 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1043 [2015]; People v Brown, 125 AD3d 1049, 1049 [2015]). | 1 | 1 |
Harley Schnall, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Marine Midland Bankgreen1 sentence2008On March 31, 2006, Robbins issued an order denying Hale’s TILA based claim, including her request for attorneys’ fees pursuant to TILA, on the ground that the claim was “completely without merit in law,” and awarded Chase $5,600 in attorneys’ fees (petition, exhibit B), citing Schnall v Marine Midland Bank ( 225 F3d 263, 269 [2d Cir 2000]), in which the Second Circuit held that a bank is not required to disclose the reduced rate of a special offer in monthly statements. 3 On May 5, 2006, the original arbitrator issued the amended order. 4 Upon Hale’s appeal of the amended order, on October 29, | 1 | 1 |
Kisloff v. Covingtongreen1 sentence2002It is well settled that a court may correct its own mistakes, and the record indicates that the court corrected its mistake by amending the order to reflect that defendant’s probation term expires in September 2004 and forwarded a copy of the amended document to defense counsel (see Matter of Kisloff v Covington, 73 NY2d 445, 450 [1989]; People v Wright, 56 NY2d 613 [1982]; People v Minaya, 54 NY2d 360 [1981]). | 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. Tolar
green
1 sentence2019The County Court denied the motion, and the denial was affirmed by this Court, which, without setting forth the factual details, determined that "the People's failure to disclose a particular document to the defense until after the trial [did] not warrant reversal, since [the defendant] failed to show that there was a reasonable possibility that the non-disclosure materially contributed to the result of the trial'" ( People v Ward , 116 AD3d at 992 , quoting CPL 240.75; see People v Jinghi Li , 104 AD3d 704 , 705). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
1 sentence2008The defendant moved for a mistrial on the ground that the People failed to disclose a certain document in violation of Brady v Maryland ( 373 US 83 [1963]). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
People v. Maurice K.
neutral
1 sentence2002Inasmuch as defendant has already served probation time on his previous invalid sentence, he should be credited with such time on his resentence (see People v Maurice K., 123 Misc 2d 251 [1984]). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
People v. Minaya
green
1 sentence2002It is well settled that a court may correct its own mistakes, and the record indicates that the court corrected its mistake by amending the order to reflect that defendant’s probation term expires in September 2004 and forwarded a copy of the amended document to defense counsel (see Matter of Kisloff v Covington, 73 NY2d 445, 450 [1989]; People v Wright, 56 NY2d 613 [1982]; People v Minaya, 54 NY2d 360 [1981]). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
People v. Wright
green
1 sentence2002It is well settled that a court may correct its own mistakes, and the record indicates that the court corrected its mistake by amending the order to reflect that defendant’s probation term expires in September 2004 and forwarded a copy of the amended document to defense counsel (see Matter of Kisloff v Covington, 73 NY2d 445, 450 [1989]; People v Wright, 56 NY2d 613 [1982]; People v Minaya, 54 NY2d 360 [1981]). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
219 Broadway Corp. v. Alexander's, Inc.
green
2 sentences1990Rather than a physical transfer of the document as the standard for delivery, the court defined the concept as "acts or words or both acts and words which clearly manifest that it is the intent of the parties that an interest in the land is, in fact, being conveyed to the lessee.” ( 46 NY2d, at 512 .) Thus, the mere fact that defendants did not actually receive the contract does not necessarily signify that plaintiff did not "deliver” the contract. 1990It is, as the Court of Appeals noted in 219 Broadway (supra), common in the practices of the modern business world for parties to draft and sign documents transferring interests in real property prior to the date as of which the parties intend the transaction to become irrevocable. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Overheiser v. . Lackey
green
1 sentence1966(See, also, Matter of Haddock, 170 App. Div. 26 .) In Overheiser v. Lackey ( 207 N. Y. 229, 231 ) the Court of Appeals construed a devise to “ Eliza Jane Marsh and Hester Marsh, jointly” and stated (p. 233) that an important factor: “ Where a doubt arises, as in the case at bar, as to the intent of a devisor in using the word ‘ jointly,’ the courts have sought aid in solving the ambiguity by inquiring whether the instrument of devise was prepared by a lawyer familiar with the technical distinctions between different kinds of estates or by a layman who cannot be presumed to have had any such kn | 1 | 1966–1966 |
In re the Determination of the Construction & Effect of a Disposition of Property Contained in the Last Will & Testament of Haddock
neutral
1 sentence1966(See, also, Matter of Haddock, 170 App. Div. 26 .) In Overheiser v. Lackey ( 207 N. Y. 229, 231 ) the Court of Appeals construed a devise to “ Eliza Jane Marsh and Hester Marsh, jointly” and stated (p. 233) that an important factor: “ Where a doubt arises, as in the case at bar, as to the intent of a devisor in using the word ‘ jointly,’ the courts have sought aid in solving the ambiguity by inquiring whether the instrument of devise was prepared by a lawyer familiar with the technical distinctions between different kinds of estates or by a layman who cannot be presumed to have had any such kn | 1 | 1966–1966 |
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.