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 2 courts 1985–2020 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. Stevensongreen2 sentences2014Defendant’s presence on the curb in the general vicinity of house number 116 was “ ‘readily susceptible of an innocent interpretation,’ ” i.e., that defendant was simply crossing the street (People v Riddick, 70 AD3d 1421, 1422 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 844 [2010]), and “[t]he fact that defendant was located in a high[-]crime area does not by itself justify the police conduct where, as here, there were no other objective indicia of criminality” (P eople v Stevenson, 273 AD2d 826, 827 [2000]). 2014Defendant’s presence on the curb in the general vicinity of house number 116 was “ ‘readily susceptible of an innocent interpretation,’ ” i.e., that defendant was simply crossing the street (People v Riddick, 70 AD3d 1421, 1422 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 844 [2010]), and “[t]he fact that defendant was located in a high[-]crime area does not by itself justify the police conduct where, as here, there were no other objective indicia of criminality” (P eople v Stevenson, 273 AD2d 826, 827 [2000]). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Riddickgreen2 sentences2014Defendant’s presence on the curb in the general vicinity of house number 116 was “ ‘readily susceptible of an innocent interpretation,’ ” i.e., that defendant was simply crossing the street (People v Riddick, 70 AD3d 1421, 1422 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 844 [2010]), and “[t]he fact that defendant was located in a high[-]crime area does not by itself justify the police conduct where, as here, there were no other objective indicia of criminality” (P eople v Stevenson, 273 AD2d 826, 827 [2000]). 2014Defendant’s presence on the curb in the general vicinity of house number 116 was “ ‘readily susceptible of an innocent interpretation,’ ” i.e., that defendant was simply crossing the street (People v Riddick, 70 AD3d 1421, 1422 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 844 [2010]), and “[t]he fact that defendant was located in a high[-]crime area does not by itself justify the police conduct where, as here, there were no other objective indicia of criminality” (P eople v Stevenson, 273 AD2d 826, 827 [2000]). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Whitegreen2 sentences2013As defendant benefitted from a favorable plea agreement and there is nothing in the record supporting his claim of ineffective assistance, we find that he received meaningful representation (see People v Fink, 97 AD3d 974, 976 [2012]; People v White, 85 AD3d 1493, 1494 [2011]). 2013As defendant benefitted from a favorable plea agreement and there is nothing in the record supporting his claim of ineffective assistance, we find that he received meaningful representation (see People v Fink, 97 AD3d 974, 976 [2012]; People v White, 85 AD3d 1493, 1494 [2011]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Nortongreen2 sentences2013As to defendant’s claim that his sentence is harsh and excessive, we discern neither an abuse of discretion nor extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Doe, 95 AD3d 1449, 1449 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 995 [2012]; People v Norton, 88 AD3d 1027, 1028-1029 [2011]). 2013As to defendant’s claim that his sentence is harsh and excessive, we discern neither an abuse of discretion nor extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Doe, 95 AD3d 1449, 1449 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 995 [2012]; People v Norton, 88 AD3d 1027, 1028-1029 [2011]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Doegreen2 sentences2013As to defendant’s claim that his sentence is harsh and excessive, we discern neither an abuse of discretion nor extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Doe, 95 AD3d 1449, 1449 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 995 [2012]; People v Norton, 88 AD3d 1027, 1028-1029 [2011]). 2013As to defendant’s claim that his sentence is harsh and excessive, we discern neither an abuse of discretion nor extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Doe, 95 AD3d 1449, 1449 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 995 [2012]; People v Norton, 88 AD3d 1027, 1028-1029 [2011]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Finkgreen2 sentences2013As defendant benefitted from a favorable plea agreement and there is nothing in the record supporting his claim of ineffective assistance, we find that he received meaningful representation (see People v Fink, 97 AD3d 974, 976 [2012]; People v White, 85 AD3d 1493, 1494 [2011]). 2013As defendant benefitted from a favorable plea agreement and there is nothing in the record supporting his claim of ineffective assistance, we find that he received meaningful representation (see People v Fink, 97 AD3d 974, 976 [2012]; People v White, 85 AD3d 1493, 1494 [2011]). | 2 | 2 |
Bartolacci-Meir v. Sassoongreen1 sentence2020In response, plaintiff failed to present medical evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact, as her expert points to nothing in the record supporting his analysis that plaintiff, who complained only of puffy eyes with nasal congestion, required cancer blood screening and a chest X ray at that time ( see Bartolacci-Meir v Sassoon , 149 AD3d 567, 572 [1st Dept 2017]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. McKnightgreen1 sentence2016Contrary to the People’s argument, defendant’s claim that his sentence is harsh and excessive is not foreclosed by his guilty plea, as he preserved his right to appeal (see People v McKnight, 129 AD3d 1459, 1460 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 932 [2015]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Wrengreen1 sentence2016Counsel’s argument at sentencing that the prison term of 12V2 years was a recommended maximum rather than an agreed-upon period of incarceration did not reflect confusion, but instead, counsel’s strategy—previously discussed on the record—to add medical evidence to the record supporting a claim that defendant should receive a reduced sentence because he was being treated for a serious illness. 3 Although County Court rejected this argument, counsel nevertheless achieved his stated goal of preserving the issue for appeal; additionally, he obtained an advantageous plea agreement, and defendant s | 1 | 1 |
People v. Briggsgreen1 sentence2016Counsel’s argument at sentencing that the prison term of 12V2 years was a recommended maximum rather than an agreed-upon period of incarceration did not reflect confusion, but instead, counsel’s strategy—previously discussed on the record—to add medical evidence to the record supporting a claim that defendant should receive a reduced sentence because he was being treated for a serious illness. 3 Although County Court rejected this argument, counsel nevertheless achieved his stated goal of preserving the issue for appeal; additionally, he obtained an advantageous plea agreement, and defendant s | 1 | 1 |
Tibbits v. Verizon New York, Inc.green1 sentence2009Found., 47 AD3d 1058, 1060 [2008]; Tibbits v Verizon N.Y., Inc., 40 AD3d 1300, 1302 [2007]; Stankowski v Kim, 286 AD2d 282, 283 [2001], appeal dismissed 97 NY2d 677 [2001]; Guzman v L.M.P. | 1 | 1 |
Norman v. Cornell Universitygreen1 sentence2009Found., 47 AD3d 1058, 1060 [2008]; Tibbits v Verizon N.Y., Inc., 40 AD3d 1300, 1302 [2007]; Stankowski v Kim, 286 AD2d 282, 283 [2001], appeal dismissed 97 NY2d 677 [2001]; Guzman v L.M.P. | 1 | 1 |
Stankowski v. Kimgreen1 sentence2009Found., 47 AD3d 1058, 1060 [2008]; Tibbits v Verizon N.Y., Inc., 40 AD3d 1300, 1302 [2007]; Stankowski v Kim, 286 AD2d 282, 283 [2001], appeal dismissed 97 NY2d 677 [2001]; Guzman v L.M.P. | 1 | 1 |
Zuckerman v. City of New Yorkgreen1 sentence2009As inadmissible hearsay, Edwards’ statements could be considered in opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment only if there were an acceptable excuse for plaintiffs’ failure to present the evidence in admissible form (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; Meizinger v Akin, 192 AD2d 1011, 1014 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 661 [1993]) or other competent evidence in the record supporting their claim (see Saint James’ Episcopal Church v F.O.C.U.S. | 1 | 1 |
Meizinger v. Akingreen1 sentence2009As inadmissible hearsay, Edwards’ statements could be considered in opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment only if there were an acceptable excuse for plaintiffs’ failure to present the evidence in admissible form (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; Meizinger v Akin, 192 AD2d 1011, 1014 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 661 [1993]) or other competent evidence in the record supporting their claim (see Saint James’ Episcopal Church v F.O.C.U.S. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Millergreen1 sentence2006Having charged the defense, however, it was incumbent upon the court to instruct that the “perceptions [and] state of mind[ ] of the participants to the encounter are critical” (People v Miller, 39 NY2d 543, 548 [1976]). | 1 | 1 |
Kranich v. Bachgreen1 sentence2003Turning next to the issue of waiver, we agree with Supreme Court’s conclusion that plaintiffs claims concerning the bonuses authorized, by defendants, as well as formalities such as written notice of annual shareholder meetings or formal elections and voting, were all waived by his failure to object or request compliance with the requirements of the corporations’ bylaws or the Business Corporation Law (see Matter of Flushing Hosp. & Dispensary, 288 NY 125, 131 [1942]; Kranich v Bach, 209 App Div 52, 54 [1924]; Winter v Bernstein, 149 Misc 2d 1017, 1020 [1991], mod 177 AD2d 452, 453 [1991]; see | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Flushing Hospital Dispensarygreen1 sentence2003Turning next to the issue of waiver, we agree with Supreme Court’s conclusion that plaintiffs claims concerning the bonuses authorized, by defendants, as well as formalities such as written notice of annual shareholder meetings or formal elections and voting, were all waived by his failure to object or request compliance with the requirements of the corporations’ bylaws or the Business Corporation Law (see Matter of Flushing Hosp. & Dispensary, 288 NY 125, 131 [1942]; Kranich v Bach, 209 App Div 52, 54 [1924]; Winter v Bernstein, 149 Misc 2d 1017, 1020 [1991], mod 177 AD2d 452, 453 [1991]; see | 1 | 1 |
Winter v. Bernsteingreen1 sentence2003Turning next to the issue of waiver, we agree with Supreme Court’s conclusion that plaintiffs claims concerning the bonuses authorized, by defendants, as well as formalities such as written notice of annual shareholder meetings or formal elections and voting, were all waived by his failure to object or request compliance with the requirements of the corporations’ bylaws or the Business Corporation Law (see Matter of Flushing Hosp. & Dispensary, 288 NY 125, 131 [1942]; Kranich v Bach, 209 App Div 52, 54 [1924]; Winter v Bernstein, 149 Misc 2d 1017, 1020 [1991], mod 177 AD2d 452, 453 [1991]; see | 1 | 1 |
Winter v. Bernsteingreen1 sentence2003Turning next to the issue of waiver, we agree with Supreme Court’s conclusion that plaintiffs claims concerning the bonuses authorized, by defendants, as well as formalities such as written notice of annual shareholder meetings or formal elections and voting, were all waived by his failure to object or request compliance with the requirements of the corporations’ bylaws or the Business Corporation Law (see Matter of Flushing Hosp. & Dispensary, 288 NY 125, 131 [1942]; Kranich v Bach, 209 App Div 52, 54 [1924]; Winter v Bernstein, 149 Misc 2d 1017, 1020 [1991], mod 177 AD2d 452, 453 [1991]; see | 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. Riddick
green
2 sentences2014Defendant’s presence on the curb in the general vicinity of house number 116 was “ ‘readily susceptible of an innocent interpretation,’ ” i.e., that defendant was simply crossing the street (People v Riddick, 70 AD3d 1421, 1422 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 844 [2010]), and “[t]he fact that defendant was located in a high[-]crime area does not by itself justify the police conduct where, as here, there were no other objective indicia of criminality” (P eople v Stevenson, 273 AD2d 826, 827 [2000]). 2014Defendant’s presence on the curb in the general vicinity of house number 116 was “ ‘readily susceptible of an innocent interpretation,’ ” i.e., that defendant was simply crossing the street (People v Riddick, 70 AD3d 1421, 1422 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 844 [2010]), and “[t]he fact that defendant was located in a high[-]crime area does not by itself justify the police conduct where, as here, there were no other objective indicia of criminality” (P eople v Stevenson, 273 AD2d 826, 827 [2000]). | 3 | 2014–2014 |
Lozinak v. Board of Education
green
1 sentence2016Counsel’s argument at sentencing that the prison term of 12V2 years was a recommended maximum rather than an agreed-upon period of incarceration did not reflect confusion, but instead, counsel’s strategy—previously discussed on the record—to add medical evidence to the record supporting a claim that defendant should receive a reduced sentence because he was being treated for a serious illness. 3 Although County Court rejected this argument, counsel nevertheless achieved his stated goal of preserving the issue for appeal; additionally, he obtained an advantageous plea agreement, and defendant s | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Briggs
neutral
1 sentence2016Counsel’s argument at sentencing that the prison term of 12V2 years was a recommended maximum rather than an agreed-upon period of incarceration did not reflect confusion, but instead, counsel’s strategy—previously discussed on the record—to add medical evidence to the record supporting a claim that defendant should receive a reduced sentence because he was being treated for a serious illness. 3 Although County Court rejected this argument, counsel nevertheless achieved his stated goal of preserving the issue for appeal; additionally, he obtained an advantageous plea agreement, and defendant s | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Kinchen
green
1 sentence2002Furthermore, defendant has not provided a record supporting his claim (see People v Kinchen, 60 NY2d 772 ). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
People v. Watson
green
1 sentence2002Were we to review this claim, we would find nothing in the record to cast doubt on the voluntariness of the jury waiver (see People v Watson, 162 AD2d 360, 361 ). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
People v. MacAna
green
1 sentence1997The existing record does not show that the alleged witness was knowledgeable about a material issue in the case and could provide noncumulative testimony (People v Macana, 84 NY2d 173, 177 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Pell v. Board of Education
green
1 sentence1985Further, the penalty imposed was not so disproportionate, under all the circumstances herein, as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222 , 237). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.