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.
11 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1973–2018 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. Corsogreen2 sentences2018Although "[m]ost of the common-law, coram nobis types of relief were abrogated when the Criminal Procedure Law was enacted" ( Andrews , 23 NY3d at 611 , citing People v Corso , 40 NY2d 578, 580 [1976]), that legislation "did not expressly abolish the common-law writ of coram nobis or necessarily embrace all of its prior or unanticipated functions" ( Bachert , 69 NY2d at 599 ). [*3]Therefore, in Syville , the Court recognized the continuing, albeit limited, availability of a "coram nobis type[ ] of relief [largely] abrogated when the Criminal Procedure Law was enacted"; specifically, we permitt 1980Additionally, and most significantly, while it appears that a motion by petitioner for a Montgomery hearing would now be time barred (see CPL 460.30, subd 1; People v Corso, 40 NY2d 578 ), he nonetheless still has available a motion to vacate his 1973 conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10. | 2 | 6 |
Jelfo v. Jelfogreen2 sentences2011On a motion for summary judgment, defendants in a medical malpractice case have “the initial burden of establishing the absence of any departure from good and accepted medical practice or that the plaintiff was not injured thereby” (Williams v Sahay, 12 AD3d 366, 368 [2004]; see Humphrey v Gardner, 81 AD3d 1257, 1258 [2011]). 2011On a motion for summary judgment, defendants in a medical malpractice case have “the initial burden of establishing the absence of any departure from good and accepted medical practice or that the plaintiff was not injured thereby” (Williams v Sahay, 12 AD3d 366, 368 ; see Humphrey v Gardner, 81 AD3d 1257, 1258 ). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Montgomerygreen2 sentences1980Subsequently, on January 6, 1978, his motion pursuant to CPL 440.20 for a Montgomery hearing for an extension of time to take an appeal from his 1973 conviction' was denied in an order of the court of his original conviction (see People v Montgomery, 24 NY2d 130 ), and permission to appeal this order was likewise denied on February 27, 1978. 1980Subsequently, on January 6, 1978, his motion pursuant to CPL 440.20 for a Montgomery hearing for an extension of time to take an appeal from his 1973 conviction' was denied in an order of the court of his original conviction (see People v Montgomery, 24 NY2d 130 ), and permission to appeal this order was likewise denied on February 27, 1978. | 1 | 3 |
Padilla v. Verczky-Portergreen2 sentences2011The Montgomery defendants also failed to establish as a matter of law that their alleged negligence was not a proximate cause of plaintiffs injury (see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Padilla v Verczky-Porter, 66 AD3d 1481, 1483 [2009]). 2011The Montgomery defendants also failed to establish as a matter of law that their alleged negligence was not a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury (see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 ; Padilla v Verczky-Porter, 66 AD3d 1481, 1483 ). | 1 | 2 |
Larsen v. Banwargreen2 sentences2011In support of their motion, the Montgomery defendants submitted an expert’s affidavit that “fail[ed] to address each of the specific factual claims of negligence raised in plaintiffs bill of particulars, [and thus] that affidavit is insufficient to support a motion for summary judgment as a matter of law” (Larsen v Banwar, 70 AD3d 1337, 1338 [2010]). 2011In support of their motion, the Montgomery defendants submitted an expert’s affidavit that “fail[ed] to address each of the specific factual claims of negligence raised in plaintiff’s bill of particulars, [and thus] that affidavit is insufficient to support a motion for summary judgment as a matter of law” (Larsen v Banwar, 70 AD3d 1337, 1338 ). | 1 | 2 |
Williams v. Sahaygreen2 sentences2011On a motion for summary judgment, defendants in a medical malpractice case have “the initial burden of establishing the absence of any departure from good and accepted medical practice or that the plaintiff was not injured thereby” (Williams v Sahay, 12 AD3d 366, 368 [2004]; see Humphrey v Gardner, 81 AD3d 1257, 1258 [2011]). 2011On a motion for summary judgment, defendants in a medical malpractice case have “the initial burden of establishing the absence of any departure from good and accepted medical practice or that the plaintiff was not injured thereby” (Williams v Sahay, 12 AD3d 366, 368 ; see Humphrey v Gardner, 81 AD3d 1257, 1258 ). | 1 | 2 |
Cassano v. Hagstromgreen2 sentences2011Thus, it was “beside the point to establish that” the alleged negligence was not a proximate cause of the injury (Cassano v Hagstrom, 5 NY2d 643, 645 [1959], rearg denied 6 NY2d 882 [1959]). 2011Thus, it was “beside the point to establish that” the alleged negligence was not a proximate cause of the injury (Cassano v Hagstrom, 5 NY2d 643, 645 , rearg denied 6 NY2d 882 ). | 1 | 2 |
Horth v. Mansurgreen2 sentences2011Comparing that expert’s opinion to the specific factual claim of negligence in plaintiffs’ bill of particulars, I conclude that the Montgomery defendants sufficiently established their entitlement to summary judgment and shifted the burden to plaintiffs to raise a triable issue of fact (see Horth v Mansur, 243 AD2d 1041, 1042-1043 [1997]), which they failed to do. 2011Therefore, even if the Montgomery defendants had the burden to establish that their “alleged negligence was not a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury,” they more than adequately did so by submitting evidence that it was “impossible” for the injury to have occurred during the right-side surgical approach (see Horth, 243 AD2d at 1042-1043 ). | 1 | 2 |
Abbott v. Page Airways, Inc.green2 sentences2011I therefore find no basis upon which to consider plaintiffs’ request that we search the record and grant them summary judgment on liability pursuant to CPLR 3212 (b) (see generally Abbott v Page Airways, 23 NY2d 502, 512 [1969]). 2011I therefore find no basis upon which to consider plaintiffs’ request that we search the record and grant them summary judgment on liability pursuant to CPLR 3212 (b) (see generally Abbott v Page Airways, 23 NY2d 502, 512 ). | 1 | 2 |
Alvarez v. Prospect Hospitalgreen2 sentences2011The Montgomery defendants also failed to establish as a matter of law that their alleged negligence was not a proximate cause of plaintiffs injury (see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Padilla v Verczky-Porter, 66 AD3d 1481, 1483 [2009]). 2011The Montgomery defendants also failed to establish as a matter of law that their alleged negligence was not a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury (see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 ; Padilla v Verczky-Porter, 66 AD3d 1481, 1483 ). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Sandersgreen2 sentences1984Consistent with the Montgomery decision the Court of Appeals decided a line of cases beginning with People v Ballott ( 20 NY2d 600, 604-605 ; see, also, People v Sanders, 31 NY2d 463 ; People v Matz, 23 NY2d 196 ; People v Brooks, 88 AD2d 451 ). 1984Consistent with the Montgomery decision the Court of Appeals decided a line of cases beginning with People v Ballott ( 20 NY2d 600, 604-605 ; see, also, People v Sanders, 31 NY2d 463 ; People v Matz, 23 NY2d 196 ; People v Brooks, 88 AD2d 451 ). | 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. Battice
green
2 sentences2011Thus, it was “beside the point to establish that” the alleged negligence was not a proximate cause of the injury (Cassano v Hagstrom, 5 NY2d 643, 645 [1959], rearg denied 6 NY2d 882 [1959]). 2011Thus, it was “beside the point to establish that” the alleged negligence was not a proximate cause of the injury (Cassano v Hagstrom, 5 NY2d 643, 645 , rearg denied 6 NY2d 882 ). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
People v. Andrews
green
2 sentences2018Although "[m]ost of the common-law, coram nobis types of relief were abrogated when the Criminal Procedure Law was enacted" ( Andrews , 23 NY3d at 611 , citing People v Corso , 40 NY2d 578, 580 [1976]), that legislation "did not expressly abolish the common-law writ of coram nobis or necessarily embrace all of its prior or unanticipated functions" ( Bachert , 69 NY2d at 599 ). [*3]Therefore, in Syville , the Court recognized the continuing, albeit limited, availability of a "coram nobis type[ ] of relief [largely] abrogated when the Criminal Procedure Law was enacted"; specifically, we permitt 2018Although "[m]ost of the common-law, coram nobis types of relief were abrogated when the Criminal Procedure Law was enacted" ( Andrews , 23 NY3d at 611 , citing People v Corso , 40 NY2d 578, 580 [1976]), that legislation "did not expressly abolish the common-law writ of coram nobis or necessarily embrace all of its prior or unanticipated functions" ( Bachert , 69 NY2d at 599 ). [*3]Therefore, in Syville , the Court recognized the continuing, albeit limited, availability of a "coram nobis type[ ] of relief [largely] abrogated when the Criminal Procedure Law was enacted"; specifically, we permitt | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Bachert
green
1 sentence2018Although "[m]ost of the common-law, coram nobis types of relief were abrogated when the Criminal Procedure Law was enacted" ( Andrews , 23 NY3d at 611 , citing People v Corso , 40 NY2d 578, 580 [1976]), that legislation "did not expressly abolish the common-law writ of coram nobis or necessarily embrace all of its prior or unanticipated functions" ( Bachert , 69 NY2d at 599 ). [*3]Therefore, in Syville , the Court recognized the continuing, albeit limited, availability of a "coram nobis type[ ] of relief [largely] abrogated when the Criminal Procedure Law was enacted"; specifically, we permitt | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Brooks
neutral
2 sentences1984Consistent with the Montgomery decision the Court of Appeals decided a line of cases beginning with People v Ballott ( 20 NY2d 600, 604-605 ; see, also, People v Sanders, 31 NY2d 463 ; People v Matz, 23 NY2d 196 ; People v Brooks, 88 AD2d 451 ). 1984Consistent with the Montgomery decision the Court of Appeals decided a line of cases beginning with People v Ballott ( 20 NY2d 600, 604-605 ; see, also, People v Sanders, 31 NY2d 463 ; People v Matz, 23 NY2d 196 ; People v Brooks, 88 AD2d 451 ). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
People v. Matz
green
2 sentences1984Consistent with the Montgomery decision the Court of Appeals decided a line of cases beginning with People v Ballott ( 20 NY2d 600, 604-605 ; see, also, People v Sanders, 31 NY2d 463 ; People v Matz, 23 NY2d 196 ; People v Brooks, 88 AD2d 451 ). 1984Consistent with the Montgomery decision the Court of Appeals decided a line of cases beginning with People v Ballott ( 20 NY2d 600, 604-605 ; see, also, People v Sanders, 31 NY2d 463 ; People v Matz, 23 NY2d 196 ; People v Brooks, 88 AD2d 451 ). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
People v. Ballott
green
2 sentences1984Consistent with the Montgomery decision the Court of Appeals decided a line of cases beginning with People v Ballott ( 20 NY2d 600, 604-605 ; see, also, People v Sanders, 31 NY2d 463 ; People v Matz, 23 NY2d 196 ; People v Brooks, 88 AD2d 451 ). 1984Consistent with the Montgomery decision the Court of Appeals decided a line of cases beginning with People v Ballott ( 20 NY2d 600, 604-605 ; see, also, People v Sanders, 31 NY2d 463 ; People v Matz, 23 NY2d 196 ; People v Brooks, 88 AD2d 451 ). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
People v. Aiken
green
2 sentences1982Therefore, confining defendant’s application to his claimed violation of his constitutional right to counsel under CPL 440.10 (subd 1, par [h]), it may be concluded that the trial court correctly determined, on the evidence offered at the hearing, that defendant had failed to demonstrate inadequate representation of counsel at trial which deprived him of his constitutional right thereto under the State and Federal Constitutions (People v Aiken, 45 NY2d 394, 398 ). 1982Therefore, confining defendant’s application to his claimed violation of his constitutional right to counsel under CPL 440.10 (subd 1, par [h]), it may be concluded that the trial court correctly determined, on the evidence offered at the hearing, that defendant had failed to demonstrate inadequate representation of counsel at trial which deprived him of his constitutional right thereto under the State and Federal Constitutions (People v Aiken, 45 NY2d 394, 398 ). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
People v. Thomas
green
2 sentences1982Having been informed that his notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days, the failure of defendant to comply with this section or to make any attempt whatsoever to extend his time to appeal until 2Yz years after his time to appeal had expired is solely attributable to his own fault (cf. People v Thomas, 47 NY2d 37 ) and precludes a consideration of his motion as a Montgomery claim. 1982Having been informed that his notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days, the failure of defendant to comply with this section or to make any attempt whatsoever to extend his time to appeal until 2Yz years after his time to appeal had expired is solely attributable to his own fault (cf. People v Thomas, 47 NY2d 37 ) and precludes a consideration of his motion as a Montgomery claim. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
People v. Curry
green
2 sentences1976While there is no history indicating that the Legislature explicitly sought to codify People v Montgomery (supra) in CPL 460.30, the statute plainly and precisely deals with and encompasses the relief sought on a Montgomery claim and eliminates the necessity of resentencing for the purposes of taking a timely appeal (see People v Curry, 42 AD2d 514 ). 1976While there is no history indicating that the Legislature explicitly sought to codify People v Montgomery (supra) in CPL 460.30, the statute plainly and precisely deals with and encompasses the relief sought on a Montgomery claim and eliminates the necessity of resentencing for the purposes of taking a timely appeal (see People v Curry, 42 AD2d 514 ). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
McNulty v. Weaver
neutral
2 sentences1976Similarly, defendant’s related contention that the District Attorney breached a promise of a lighter sentence is not sufficient to warrant a Montgomery hearing since this claim has been fully and unsuccessfully litigated in prior coram nobis proceedings instituted by defendant (see People v Corso, 17 AD2d 939 , 7 AD2d 630 ). 1976Similarly, defendant’s related contention that the District Attorney breached a promise of a lighter sentence is not sufficient to warrant a Montgomery hearing since this claim has been fully and unsuccessfully litigated in prior coram nobis proceedings instituted by defendant (see People v Corso, 17 AD2d 939 , 7 AD2d 630 ). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
People v. Corso
neutral
2 sentences1976Similarly, defendant’s related contention that the District Attorney breached a promise of a lighter sentence is not sufficient to warrant a Montgomery hearing since this claim has been fully and unsuccessfully litigated in prior coram nobis proceedings instituted by defendant (see People v Corso, 17 AD2d 939 , 7 AD2d 630 ). 1976Similarly, defendant’s related contention that the District Attorney breached a promise of a lighter sentence is not sufficient to warrant a Montgomery hearing since this claim has been fully and unsuccessfully litigated in prior coram nobis proceedings instituted by defendant (see People v Corso, 17 AD2d 939 , 7 AD2d 630 ). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
People v. White
green
2 sentences1973The petition itself, however, lacks facts to support any charge of unconstitutionality and as was stated in People v. White ( 309 N. Y. 636, 641 ) “ the defendant is not entitled to a hearing on charges lacking factual support.” The admitted failure to apprise the respondent in 1957 prior to the 1964 amendment of section 1943 has previously been held not to be ‘‘ a failure of due process which would give rise to the right to be resentenced only because of such failure. ’ ’ (People v. Simari, 34 A D 2d 878; see, also, People v. Murray, 25 A D 2d 948.) Recently, in People v. Robinson (38 A D 2d 1973The petition itself, however, lacks facts to support any charge of unconstitutionality and as was stated in People v. White ( 309 N. Y. 636, 641 ) “ the defendant is not entitled to a hearing on charges lacking factual support.” The admitted failure to apprise the respondent in 1957 prior to the 1964 amendment of section 1943 has previously been held not to be ‘‘ a failure of due process which would give rise to the right to be resentenced only because of such failure. ’ ’ (People v. Simari, 34 A D 2d 878; see, also, People v. Murray, 25 A D 2d 948.) Recently, in People v. Robinson (38 A D 2d | 1 | 1973–1973 |
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.