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.
12 New York opinions name it 1 courts 1979–2023 2 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. Outleygreen2 sentences2011Indeed, the evidence introduced at the inquiry pursuant to People v Outley ( 80 NY2d 702, 713 ) established that an indictment had been issued upon the charges underlying the postplea arrest (see People v Smith, 248 AD2d 179 , lv denied 91 NY2d 1013 ). 2011Indeed, the evidence introduced at the inquiry pursuant to People v Outley ( 80 NY2d 702, 713 [1993]) established that an indictment had been issued upon the charges underlying the postplea arrest (see People v Smith, 248 AD2d 179 [1998], lv denied 91 NY2d 1013 [1998]). | 1 | 2 |
Farabell v. Town of Macedongreen1 sentence2022We conclude that there is no evidence in the record that supports those contentions and, "in the absence of a 'clear' revelation that the administrative body 'made no independent appraisal and reached no independent conclusion,' its decision will not be disturbed" ( Matter of Taub v Pirnie , 3 NY2d 188, 195 [1957]; see Matter of Farabell v Town of Macedon , 62 AD3d 1246, 1248 [4th Dept 2009]; see also Matter of Uncle Sam Garages, LLC v Capital Dist. | 1 | 1 |
Taub v. Pirniegreen1 sentence2022We conclude that there is no evidence in the record that supports those contentions and, "in the absence of a 'clear' revelation that the administrative body 'made no independent appraisal and reached no independent conclusion,' its decision will not be disturbed" ( Matter of Taub v Pirnie , 3 NY2d 188, 195 [1957]; see Matter of Farabell v Town of Macedon , 62 AD3d 1246, 1248 [4th Dept 2009]; see also Matter of Uncle Sam Garages, LLC v Capital Dist. | 1 | 1 |
Monroe v. Fischergreen1 sentence2012Although petitioner asserts that he was never found to be in possession of drugs, this was not necessary to establish that he conspired with others to introduce drugs into the facility (see 7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [xv]; Matter of Monroe v Fischer, 73 AD3d 1304, 1304 [2010]), which was sufficiently proven by the evidence introduced at the hearing. | 1 | 1 |
Decker v. Lackosgreen1 sentence2009It is for the court to decide what importance is to be attributed to the evidence as presented and, unless that evaluation lacks a sound and substantial basis, this Court will not disturb it (see Matter of Decker v Lackos, 41 AD3d at 918; Matter of Hissam v Mackin, 41 AD3d at 956). | 1 | 1 |
Hissam v. Mackingreen1 sentence2009It is for the court to decide what importance is to be attributed to the evidence as presented and, unless that evaluation lacks a sound and substantial basis, this Court will not disturb it (see Matter of Decker v Lackos, 41 AD3d at 918; Matter of Hissam v Mackin, 41 AD3d at 956). | 1 | 1 |
Boulerice v. Heaneygreen1 sentence2009Given the traditional deference we accord Family Court’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses who testified before it, the mother’s claim of domestic violence was not established by a preponderance of the evidence introduced at the hearing (see Matter of Boulerice v Heaney, 45 AD3d 1217, 1218 [2007]). | 1 | 1 |
In re Tappergreen1 sentence2004However, as to sanction, while respondent’s misconduct was serious, it appears to be aberrational and, in light of the impressive evidence submitted in mitigation, we find that a six-month suspension is warranted, which “should serve a significant deterrent and punitive purpose without destroying respondent’s means of livelihood” (see Matter of Tapper, 102 AD2d 332, 334-335 [1984]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Silvergreen1 sentence1986As such, the presumption, and the evidence introduced by the defense in rebuttal thereto, is to be considered in determining whether the People have sustained their burden of proving sanity beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Silver, supra, at p 479), but the presumption does not establish a threshold requirement for the admissibility of evidence presented by a defendant on the issue of sanity. | 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. Williams
green
2 sentences2011The record belies the further contention of defendant that the court informed him that he would not receive an enhanced sentence unless he violated all of the conditions of the plea agreement (cf. People v Williams, 195 AD2d 1040 ). 2011The record belies the further contention of defendant that the court informed him that he would not receive an enhanced sentence unless he violated all of the conditions of the plea agreement (cf. People v Williams, 195 AD2d 1040 [1993]). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
People v. Smith
green
2 sentences2011Indeed, the evidence introduced at the inquiry pursuant to People v Outley ( 80 NY2d 702, 713 ) established that an indictment had been issued upon the charges underlying the postplea arrest (see People v Smith, 248 AD2d 179 , lv denied 91 NY2d 1013 ). 2011Indeed, the evidence introduced at the inquiry pursuant to People v Outley ( 80 NY2d 702, 713 [1993]) established that an indictment had been issued upon the charges underlying the postplea arrest (see People v Smith, 248 AD2d 179 [1998], lv denied 91 NY2d 1013 [1998]). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Smith v. State of New York
green
1 sentence2023The evidence introduced at the hearing did not demonstrate that the notice of intention to file a claim had photographs attached to it and the notice did not provide a sufficient description of the location of the accident ( see Court of Claims Act § 11[b]; Smith v State of New York , 213 AD3d 789 ; Vallarta v State of New York , 211 AD3d 884 ; Criscuola v State of New York , 188 AD3d 645 ; Katan v State of New York , 174 AD3d 1212 ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Criscuola v. State of New York
green
1 sentence2023The evidence introduced at the hearing did not demonstrate that the notice of intention to file a claim had photographs attached to it and the notice did not provide a sufficient description of the location of the accident ( see Court of Claims Act § 11[b]; Smith v State of New York , 213 AD3d 789 ; Vallarta v State of New York , 211 AD3d 884 ; Criscuola v State of New York , 188 AD3d 645 ; Katan v State of New York , 174 AD3d 1212 ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Vallarta v. State of New York
green
1 sentence2023The evidence introduced at the hearing did not demonstrate that the notice of intention to file a claim had photographs attached to it and the notice did not provide a sufficient description of the location of the accident ( see Court of Claims Act § 11[b]; Smith v State of New York , 213 AD3d 789 ; Vallarta v State of New York , 211 AD3d 884 ; Criscuola v State of New York , 188 AD3d 645 ; Katan v State of New York , 174 AD3d 1212 ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Christian v. Christian
green
1 sentence1992In light of the circumstances surrounding plaintiff’s signing of the agreement, it can be regarded as nothing other than a document 'born of and subsisting in inequity.’ ” As the Court of Appeals declared in Christian v Christian ( 42 NY2d 63, 72 , supra), "Agreements between spouses, unlike ordinary business contracts, involve a fiduciary relationship requiring the utmost of good faith”. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
People v. Cook
green
1 sentence1985All periods prior to September 28, except for the period between April 8 and May 6, are therefore excluded from the time computation of CPL 30.30 (1) (see, People v Cook, 71 AD2d 801 ). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Gaetano v. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
green
1 sentence1979In fact, the evidence introduced at the hearing was remarkably similar to that found in the case of Matter of Tuscan Dairy Farms v Barber ( 45 NY2d 215, 222 , app dsmd 439 US 1040 ), wherein the Court of Appeals stated that "The direct evidence, together with the inferences reasonably to be drawn therefrom, supports the conclusion that introduction * * * of a new distributor of milk to supermarkets only — with adverse effect on distributors presently serving small retailers and themselves engaged in retail sales — would tend to a competition for milk sales which would be destructive by reason | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Tuscan Dairy Farms, Inc. v. Barber
green
1 sentence1979In fact, the evidence introduced at the hearing was remarkably similar to that found in the case of Matter of Tuscan Dairy Farms v Barber ( 45 NY2d 215, 222 , app dsmd 439 US 1040 ), wherein the Court of Appeals stated that "The direct evidence, together with the inferences reasonably to be drawn therefrom, supports the conclusion that introduction * * * of a new distributor of milk to supermarkets only — with adverse effect on distributors presently serving small retailers and themselves engaged in retail sales — would tend to a competition for milk sales which would be destructive by reason | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.