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.
13 New York opinions name it 9 courts 1909–2024 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. Kennedygreen2 sentences2024Under CPLR 4518 (a), as the New York Court of Appeals detailed in People v. Kennedy, 68 N.Y.2d 569, 579-80 (1986), the requirements are as follows: "(a): first, that the record be made in the regular course of business-essentially, that it reflect a routine, regularly conducted business activity, and that it be needed and relied on in the performance of functions of the business; second, that it be the regular course of such business to make the record (a double requirement of regularity)-essentially, _that the record be made pursuant to established procedures for the routine, habitual, system 2016The foundation requirements of CPLR 4518 (a) are “first, that the record be made in the regular course of business — essentially, that it reflect a routine, regularly conducted business activity, and that it be needed and relied on in the performance of functions of the business; second, that it be the regular course of such business to make the record (a double requirement of regularity) — essentially, that the record be made pursuant to established procedures for the routine, habitual, systematic making of such a record; and third, that the record be made at or about the time of the event be | 3 | 3 |
Aurora Loan Services, LLC v. Merciusgreen1 sentence2024See also Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Mercius, 138 A.D.3d 650 (2d Dep't 2016). | 1 | 1 |
Faust v. New York City Transit Authoritygreen1 sentence2009Auth., 4 Misc 3d 89, 91 [App Term, 2d Dept 2004].) “[T]he foundation requirements of CPLR 4518 (a) [are]: first, that the record be made in the regular course of business — essentially, that it reflect a routine, regularly conducted business activity, and that it be needed and relied on in the performance of functions of the business; second, that it be the regular course of such business to make the record (a double requirement of regularity) — essentially, that the record be made pursuant to established procedures for the routine, habitual, systematic making of such a record; and third, that | 1 | 1 |
Jacobs v. Altmangreen1 sentence1988By denying prohibition to defendants in such circumstances and now by mandating its issuance here to prosecutors, the majority surely seem to be applying a double standard (see also, Matter of Jacobs v Altman, 69 NY2d 733, 735 [prohibition not available to defendant to review unauthorized interim probation supervision]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Smithgreen1 sentence1980Lest Aiken be simply read to indicate a side-by-side existence of the two competing standards, however, the obvious must be noted— the more taxing reasonable competence criterion diminishes the importance of the traditional one. 14 Nevertheless, we are constrained to differ somewhat with the conclusion of our brethren in the Fourth Department that Aiken and Droz have sapped the remaining Vitality from the mockery of justice standard (see People v Wise, 64 AD2d 272 ; see, also, People v Smith, 61 AD2d 91, 100 [Cardamone, J., dissenting]). | 1 | 1 |
Mierke v. Jefferson County Savings Bankgreen1 sentence1915See Mierke v. Jefferson Co. Savings Bank, 208 N. Y. 347 . | 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 |
|---|---|---|
One Step Up, Ltd. v. Webster Business Credit Corp.
green
1 sentence2017Credit Corp., 87 AD3d 1 [1st Dept 2011]). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Webster Associates v. Town of Webster
green
1 sentence1989Corp. (supra) and Webster Assocs. v Town of Webster ( 112 Misc 2d 396 , affd 85 AD2d 882 , revd on other grounds 59 NY2d 220 ), which recognize a double standard for assessing the adequacy of an applicant’s discussion of alternatives. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Webster Associates v. Town of Webster
green
2 sentences1989Corp. (supra) and Webster Assocs. v Town of Webster ( 112 Misc 2d 396 , affd 85 AD2d 882 , revd on other grounds 59 NY2d 220 ), which recognize a double standard for assessing the adequacy of an applicant’s discussion of alternatives. 1989Unlike governmental agencies, private developers may limit their consideration of alternate sites to parcels owned or under option to them because they do not have the resources and eminent domain power possessed by a governmental agency (see, Webster Assocs. v Town of Webster, supra, 112 Misc 2d, at 410 ). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Webster Associates v. Town of Webster
green
1 sentence1989Corp. (supra) and Webster Assocs. v Town of Webster ( 112 Misc 2d 396 , affd 85 AD2d 882 , revd on other grounds 59 NY2d 220 ), which recognize a double standard for assessing the adequacy of an applicant’s discussion of alternatives. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
People v. Brothers
green
1 sentence1986Accordingly, this court holds that the People have admitted to not being ready for trial within the time prescribed in CPL 30.30 (1) (b) in full compliance with the mandate of People v Brothers ( 50 NY2d 413 [1980]) and its progeny. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
People v. Wise
green
1 sentence1980Lest Aiken be simply read to indicate a side-by-side existence of the two competing standards, however, the obvious must be noted— the more taxing reasonable competence criterion diminishes the importance of the traditional one. 14 Nevertheless, we are constrained to differ somewhat with the conclusion of our brethren in the Fourth Department that Aiken and Droz have sapped the remaining Vitality from the mockery of justice standard (see People v Wise, 64 AD2d 272 ; see, also, People v Smith, 61 AD2d 91, 100 [Cardamone, J., dissenting]). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Wurlitzer Co. v. State Tax Commission
green
1 sentence1976In Matter of Wurlitzer Co. v State Tax Comm. ( 35 NY2d 100 ), however, the majority opinion relates the discretion of the respondent to requiring a report which is an accurate reflection of the income which should be subjected to taxation. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Pact v. Pact
neutral
1 sentence1974(See Pact v. Pact, 70 Misc 2d 100 ; Matter of Infant H., 69 Misc 2d 304, 308 .) The trend in many other jurisdictions has been, in recent years, to depart from the double standard in custody disputes that favors a “ fit ” natural parent in a contest with nonparents. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
In re the Adoption of Infant H
green
1 sentence1974(See Pact v. Pact, 70 Misc 2d 100 ; Matter of Infant H., 69 Misc 2d 304, 308 .) The trend in many other jurisdictions has been, in recent years, to depart from the double standard in custody disputes that favors a “ fit ” natural parent in a contest with nonparents. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Wilson & Co. v. Hershkowitz
neutral
1 sentence1939(Wilson & Co., Inc., v. Hershkowitz, 163 Misc. 721 .) Section 164 of the Civil Practice Act provides a double exception concerning the service of papers through the medium of mailing, particularly with reference to a notice of trial. | 1 | 1939–1939 |
Hartshorn v. . Chaddock
green
1 sentence1909He says: “We are aware that in the case of Hartshorn v. Chad-dock ( 135 N. Y. 116 -122), the judge delivering the opinion says: ‘ The rule seems to be that when the reasonable cost of repairing the injury, or, in this case, the cost of restoring the land to its former condition, is less than what is shown to be the diminution in the market value of the whole property by reason of the injury, such cost of restoration is the proper measure of damages; on the other hand, when the cost of restoring is more than such diminution, the latter is generally the true measure of damages.’ “ This rule, as | 1 | 1909–1909 |
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.