11 New York opinions name it 4 courts 1989–2015 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. Talhamgreen2 sentences2015Here, the failure of the local criminal court to transmit the divestiture documents did not prevent the prosecutor from presenting the case to a grand jury or being ready for trial (see People v Talham, 41 AD2d 354, 355-356 [1973]; cf. People v Mickewitz, 210 AD2d 1004, 1004-1005 [1994], lv denied 85 NY2d 977 [1995]; LaBounty, 104 AD2d at 204-205 ). 2015Here, the failure of the local criminal court to transmit the divestiture documents did not prevent the prosecutor from presenting the case to a grand jury or being ready for trial (see People v Talham, 41 AD2d 354, 355-356 [1973]; cf. People v Mickewitz, 210 AD2d 1004, 1004-1005 [1994], lv denied 85 NY2d 977 [1995]; LaBounty, 104 AD2d at 204-205 ). | 2 | 3 |
People v. LaBountygreen2 sentences2015We reject the contention of the People that the period of time during which the local criminal court failed to transmit the order, felony complaint and other documents pursuant to CPL 180.30 (1) to County Court is excludable time under the exceptional circumstances exception (see CPL 30.30 [4] [g]). “[A]nalysis of cases where ‘exceptional circumstances’ have been found reveals two common factors: (1) that the delay was due to circumstances beyond the control of the District Attorney’s office; and (2) that it prevented the prosecution from being ready for trial” (People v LaBounty, 104 AD2d 202 2015We reject the contention of the People that the period of time during which the local criminal court failed to transmit the order, felony complaint and other documents pursuant to CPL 180.30 (1) to County Court is excludable time under the exceptional circumstances exception (see CPL 30.30 [4] [g]). “[A]nalysis of cases where ‘exceptional circumstances’ have been found reveals two common factors: (1) that the delay was due to circumstances beyond the control of the District Attorney’s office; and (2) that it prevented the prosecution from being ready for trial” (People v LaBounty, 104 AD2d 202 | 2 | 3 |
People v. Mickewitzgreen2 sentences2015Here, the failure of the local criminal court to transmit the divestiture documents did not prevent the prosecutor from presenting the case to a grand jury or being ready for trial (see People v Talham, 41 AD2d 354, 355-356 [1973]; cf. People v Mickewitz, 210 AD2d 1004, 1004-1005 [1994], lv denied 85 NY2d 977 [1995]; LaBounty, 104 AD2d at 204-205 ). 2015Here, the failure of the local criminal court to transmit the divestiture documents did not prevent the prosecutor from presenting the case to a grand jury or being ready for trial (see People v Talham, 41 AD2d 354, 355-356 [1973]; cf. People v Mickewitz, 210 AD2d 1004, 1004-1005 [1994], lv denied 85 NY2d 977 [1995]; LaBounty, 104 AD2d at 204-205 ). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Worleygreen1 sentence2013Here, however, the People rely not only on the exceptional circumstances exception to speedy trial, but on CPL 30.30 (4) (a), which provides for the exclusion of: “a reasonable period of delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the defendant, including but not limited to . . . demand to produce; request for a bill of particulars; pretrial motions . . . and the period during which such matters are under consideration by the court.” CPL 30.30 (4) (b) similarly provides for the exclusion of periods granted at the request of or with the consent of counsel. 16 In People v Worley ( 66 NY2d | 1 | 1 |
Poretsky v. Poretskygreen1 sentence1994The exceptional circumstances standard may include " 'exceptional financial, educational, employment, or health considerations * * * which necessitate or justify the move’ (Richardson v Howard, 135 AD2d 1140 ; see, Poretsky v Poretsky, 176 AD2d 713, 715 )” (Matter of Atkinson v Atkinson, supra, at 772). | 1 | 1 |
Atkinson v. Atkinsongreen1 sentence1994The exceptional circumstances standard may include " 'exceptional financial, educational, employment, or health considerations * * * which necessitate or justify the move’ (Richardson v Howard, 135 AD2d 1140 ; see, Poretsky v Poretsky, 176 AD2d 713, 715 )” (Matter of Atkinson v Atkinson, supra, at 772). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Zirpolagreen1 sentence1989(People v Zirpola, 57 NY2d 706, 708 [1982]; People v Warren, 81 AD2d 872 [2d Dept 1981].) The Appellate Term’s ruling in People v Minor (supra) that the practice of reducing felony complaints by making notations on the court docket and attaching a blueback did not comply with the writing requirements of CPL 180.50 (3) (a) (iii) is the equivalent of a change in law and amounts to an exceptional circumstance within the meaning of CPL 30.30 (4) (g). | 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 Jennifer A.
green
1 sentence1999(Matter of Jennifer A., 225 AD2d 204 [1st Dept 1996], lv denied 91 NY2d 809 [1998]; Matter of Peter L., 59 NY2d 513 [1983].) Since neither party is a parent, the court need not apply the two-prong test enunciated by the Court of Appeals in Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys ( 40 NY2d 543 [1976]), and there is no need for an exceptional circumstances analysis prior to reaching the question of what is in the children’s best interests. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Bennett v. Jeffreys
green
1 sentence1999(Matter of Jennifer A., 225 AD2d 204 [1st Dept 1996], lv denied 91 NY2d 809 [1998]; Matter of Peter L., 59 NY2d 513 [1983].) Since neither party is a parent, the court need not apply the two-prong test enunciated by the Court of Appeals in Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys ( 40 NY2d 543 [1976]), and there is no need for an exceptional circumstances analysis prior to reaching the question of what is in the children’s best interests. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
In re Peter L.
green
1 sentence1999(Matter of Jennifer A., 225 AD2d 204 [1st Dept 1996], lv denied 91 NY2d 809 [1998]; Matter of Peter L., 59 NY2d 513 [1983].) Since neither party is a parent, the court need not apply the two-prong test enunciated by the Court of Appeals in Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys ( 40 NY2d 543 [1976]), and there is no need for an exceptional circumstances analysis prior to reaching the question of what is in the children’s best interests. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
MATTER OF TROPEA v. Tropea
green
2 sentences1996During the pendency of this appeal, the Court of Appeals decided two cases (Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727 ; Browner v Kenward, 87 NY2d 727 ) in which it held that the exceptional circumstances test no longer applies when determining whether relocation by a custodial parent should be permitted (see, Zarou v Levine, 216 AD2d 292 ; Daghir v Daghir, 82 AD2d 191 , affd 56 NY2d 938 ). 1996During the pendency of this appeal, the Court of Appeals decided two cases (Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727 ; Browner v Kenward, 87 NY2d 727 ) in which it held that the exceptional circumstances test no longer applies when determining whether relocation by a custodial parent should be permitted (see, Zarou v Levine, 216 AD2d 292 ; Daghir v Daghir, 82 AD2d 191 , affd 56 NY2d 938 ). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Daghir v. Daghir
green
1 sentence1996During the pendency of this appeal, the Court of Appeals decided two cases (Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727 ; Browner v Kenward, 87 NY2d 727 ) in which it held that the exceptional circumstances test no longer applies when determining whether relocation by a custodial parent should be permitted (see, Zarou v Levine, 216 AD2d 292 ; Daghir v Daghir, 82 AD2d 191 , affd 56 NY2d 938 ). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Zarou v. Levine
green
1 sentence1996During the pendency of this appeal, the Court of Appeals decided two cases (Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727 ; Browner v Kenward, 87 NY2d 727 ) in which it held that the exceptional circumstances test no longer applies when determining whether relocation by a custodial parent should be permitted (see, Zarou v Levine, 216 AD2d 292 ; Daghir v Daghir, 82 AD2d 191 , affd 56 NY2d 938 ). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Daghir v. Daghir
green
1 sentence1996During the pendency of this appeal, the Court of Appeals decided two cases (Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727 ; Browner v Kenward, 87 NY2d 727 ) in which it held that the exceptional circumstances test no longer applies when determining whether relocation by a custodial parent should be permitted (see, Zarou v Levine, 216 AD2d 292 ; Daghir v Daghir, 82 AD2d 191 , affd 56 NY2d 938 ). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Richardson v. Howard
green
1 sentence1994The exceptional circumstances standard may include " 'exceptional financial, educational, employment, or health considerations * * * which necessitate or justify the move’ (Richardson v Howard, 135 AD2d 1140 ; see, Poretsky v Poretsky, 176 AD2d 713, 715 )” (Matter of Atkinson v Atkinson, supra, at 772). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Hemphill v. Hemphill
green
1 sentence1994We note that there has been much discussion of late with respect to the interaction between the best interests of the child test noted above and the exceptional circumstances test which is traditionally applied in cases in which a change of custody necessarily entails the removal of children to a distant locale (e.g., Matter of Radford v Propper, 190 AD2d 93 ; Elkus v Elkus, 182 AD2d 45 ; Hemphill v Hemphill, 169 AD2d 29 ). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Elkus v. Elkus
green
1 sentence1994We note that there has been much discussion of late with respect to the interaction between the best interests of the child test noted above and the exceptional circumstances test which is traditionally applied in cases in which a change of custody necessarily entails the removal of children to a distant locale (e.g., Matter of Radford v Propper, 190 AD2d 93 ; Elkus v Elkus, 182 AD2d 45 ; Hemphill v Hemphill, 169 AD2d 29 ). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Radford v. Propper
green
1 sentence1994We note that there has been much discussion of late with respect to the interaction between the best interests of the child test noted above and the exceptional circumstances test which is traditionally applied in cases in which a change of custody necessarily entails the removal of children to a distant locale (e.g., Matter of Radford v Propper, 190 AD2d 93 ; Elkus v Elkus, 182 AD2d 45 ; Hemphill v Hemphill, 169 AD2d 29 ). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Grover v. Grover
green
1 sentence1992Relocation for such a reason is insufficient to satisfy the exceptional circumstances requirement (see, Hathaway v Hathaway, supra; Matter of Grover v Grover, 144 AD2d 852 ). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Ramos v. Dolan
neutral
1 sentence1992Respondent’s relocation is also relevant to the issue of stability in the children’s lives, which the courts have recognized as an important factor in determining the best interests of the children (see, e.g., Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 94 ; Matter of Ramos v Dolan, 155 AD2d 787, 790 ). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Hathaway v. Hathaway
green
1 sentence1992Relocation for such a reason is insufficient to satisfy the exceptional circumstances requirement (see, Hathaway v Hathaway, supra; Matter of Grover v Grover, 144 AD2d 852 ). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer
green
1 sentence1992Respondent’s relocation is also relevant to the issue of stability in the children’s lives, which the courts have recognized as an important factor in determining the best interests of the children (see, e.g., Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 94 ; Matter of Ramos v Dolan, 155 AD2d 787, 790 ). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Zaleski v. Zaleski
green
1 sentence1991It would, moreover, directly contravene a line of cases in which courts have determined a relocation to be in the best interests of the children concerned (see, Reyes v Ball, 162 AD2d 770 , supra; Blundell v Blundell, 150 AD2d 321 , supra; Matter of Porter v Fryer, 142 AD2d 770 , supra; Matter of Pecorello v Snodgrass, 142 AD2d 920 , supra; Matter of Aldrich v Aldrich, 130 AD2d 917 , supra; Matter of Zaleski v Zaleski, 128 AD2d 865 , supra; Martinez v Konczewski, 85 AD2d 717 , affd 57 NY2d 809 , supra). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Aldrich v. Aldrich
green
1 sentence1991It would, moreover, directly contravene a line of cases in which courts have determined a relocation to be in the best interests of the children concerned (see, Reyes v Ball, 162 AD2d 770 , supra; Blundell v Blundell, 150 AD2d 321 , supra; Matter of Porter v Fryer, 142 AD2d 770 , supra; Matter of Pecorello v Snodgrass, 142 AD2d 920 , supra; Matter of Aldrich v Aldrich, 130 AD2d 917 , supra; Matter of Zaleski v Zaleski, 128 AD2d 865 , supra; Martinez v Konczewski, 85 AD2d 717 , affd 57 NY2d 809 , supra). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Porter v. Fryer
neutral
1 sentence1991It would, moreover, directly contravene a line of cases in which courts have determined a relocation to be in the best interests of the children concerned (see, Reyes v Ball, 162 AD2d 770 , supra; Blundell v Blundell, 150 AD2d 321 , supra; Matter of Porter v Fryer, 142 AD2d 770 , supra; Matter of Pecorello v Snodgrass, 142 AD2d 920 , supra; Matter of Aldrich v Aldrich, 130 AD2d 917 , supra; Matter of Zaleski v Zaleski, 128 AD2d 865 , supra; Martinez v Konczewski, 85 AD2d 717 , affd 57 NY2d 809 , supra). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Pecorello v. Snodgrass
green
1 sentence1991It would, moreover, directly contravene a line of cases in which courts have determined a relocation to be in the best interests of the children concerned (see, Reyes v Ball, 162 AD2d 770 , supra; Blundell v Blundell, 150 AD2d 321 , supra; Matter of Porter v Fryer, 142 AD2d 770 , supra; Matter of Pecorello v Snodgrass, 142 AD2d 920 , supra; Matter of Aldrich v Aldrich, 130 AD2d 917 , supra; Matter of Zaleski v Zaleski, 128 AD2d 865 , supra; Martinez v Konczewski, 85 AD2d 717 , affd 57 NY2d 809 , supra). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Blundell v. Blundell
green
1 sentence1991It would, moreover, directly contravene a line of cases in which courts have determined a relocation to be in the best interests of the children concerned (see, Reyes v Ball, 162 AD2d 770 , supra; Blundell v Blundell, 150 AD2d 321 , supra; Matter of Porter v Fryer, 142 AD2d 770 , supra; Matter of Pecorello v Snodgrass, 142 AD2d 920 , supra; Matter of Aldrich v Aldrich, 130 AD2d 917 , supra; Matter of Zaleski v Zaleski, 128 AD2d 865 , supra; Martinez v Konczewski, 85 AD2d 717 , affd 57 NY2d 809 , supra). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Martinez v. Konczewski
green
1 sentence1991It would, moreover, directly contravene a line of cases in which courts have determined a relocation to be in the best interests of the children concerned (see, Reyes v Ball, 162 AD2d 770 , supra; Blundell v Blundell, 150 AD2d 321 , supra; Matter of Porter v Fryer, 142 AD2d 770 , supra; Matter of Pecorello v Snodgrass, 142 AD2d 920 , supra; Matter of Aldrich v Aldrich, 130 AD2d 917 , supra; Matter of Zaleski v Zaleski, 128 AD2d 865 , supra; Martinez v Konczewski, 85 AD2d 717 , affd 57 NY2d 809 , supra). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Martinez v. Konczewski
green
1 sentence1991It would, moreover, directly contravene a line of cases in which courts have determined a relocation to be in the best interests of the children concerned (see, Reyes v Ball, 162 AD2d 770 , supra; Blundell v Blundell, 150 AD2d 321 , supra; Matter of Porter v Fryer, 142 AD2d 770 , supra; Matter of Pecorello v Snodgrass, 142 AD2d 920 , supra; Matter of Aldrich v Aldrich, 130 AD2d 917 , supra; Matter of Zaleski v Zaleski, 128 AD2d 865 , supra; Martinez v Konczewski, 85 AD2d 717 , affd 57 NY2d 809 , supra). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Reyes v. Ball
green
1 sentence1991It would, moreover, directly contravene a line of cases in which courts have determined a relocation to be in the best interests of the children concerned (see, Reyes v Ball, 162 AD2d 770 , supra; Blundell v Blundell, 150 AD2d 321 , supra; Matter of Porter v Fryer, 142 AD2d 770 , supra; Matter of Pecorello v Snodgrass, 142 AD2d 920 , supra; Matter of Aldrich v Aldrich, 130 AD2d 917 , supra; Matter of Zaleski v Zaleski, 128 AD2d 865 , supra; Martinez v Konczewski, 85 AD2d 717 , affd 57 NY2d 809 , supra). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| People v. Warren neutral | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.