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 1931–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bazin v. Novellogreen1 sentence2019Contrary to petitioners' contention, an obvious clerical error in the Commissioner's determination does not warrant reversal and annulment ( see Matter of Bazin v Novello , 301 AD2d 975, 976 [2003]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Graygreen1 sentence1995The amendment, which was to correct an obvious clerical error, did not change the theory of the prosecution (see, People v Grega, 72 NY2d 489, 499 ; see, People v Gray, 157 AD2d 596 ; People v Heaton, 59 AD2d 704 ). | 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. Hood
green
2 sentences1997The amendment corrected an obvious clerical error which was not prejudicial and did not alter the theory of the prosecution’s case (see, CPL 200.70; People v DeSanto, 217 AD2d 636 ; People v Bell, 206 AD2d 686 ; People v Hood, 194 AD2d 556 ). 1995It simply conformed the indictment to the evidence that was presented to the Grand Jury to accurately reflect the criminal act for which the Grand Jury had intended to indict the defendant (see, People v Hood, supra; People v Johnson, supra). | 2 | 1995–1997 |
In re the Estate of Dunne
green
2 sentences1933No controversy exists respecting the applicable law, both sides agreeing that the court has the power to modify a decree previously entered upon a demonstration that an obvious clerical error has been committed in connection therewith, and that it has no such power to correct an error of law, the sole remedy in the latter instance being by appeal (Matter of Dunne, 138 Misc. 840 ), the time for which in the present instance has long since expired. 1933This can be accomplished only upon a demonstration of fraud, newly-discovered evidence, clerical error or “ other sufficient cause,’’ which latter phrase was in Matter of Tilden ( 98 N. Y. 434, 442 ) strictly limited to “ causes of like nature with those specifically named.’’ In Matter of Dunne ( 138 Misc. 840 , 842 et seq.) this court had occasion to review somewhat fully the pertinent decisions in this regard from which the rule was deduced that “ relief of this nature has uniformly been limited to cases in which an obvious clerical error had been committed, in which the court had no jurisdi | 2 | 1933–1933 |
National Tractor Trailer School, Inc. v. Commissioner of New York State Department of Motor Vehicles
green
2 sentences2000State Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 191 AD2d 961 , lv denied 82 NY2d 657 ) and the Attorney General has submitted an amended determination in which the Comptroller corrected the obvious clerical error in this case. 2000State Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 191 AD2d 961 , lv denied 82 NY2d 657 ) and the Attorney General has submitted an amended determination in which the Comptroller corrected the obvious clerical error in this case. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
People v. Bell
neutral
1 sentence1997The amendment corrected an obvious clerical error which was not prejudicial and did not alter the theory of the prosecution’s case (see, CPL 200.70; People v DeSanto, 217 AD2d 636 ; People v Bell, 206 AD2d 686 ; People v Hood, 194 AD2d 556 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
People v. DeSanto
green
1 sentence1997The amendment corrected an obvious clerical error which was not prejudicial and did not alter the theory of the prosecution’s case (see, CPL 200.70; People v DeSanto, 217 AD2d 636 ; People v Bell, 206 AD2d 686 ; People v Hood, 194 AD2d 556 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
People v. Johnson
neutral
1 sentence1995It simply conformed the indictment to the evidence that was presented to the Grand Jury to accurately reflect the criminal act for which the Grand Jury had intended to indict the defendant (see, People v Hood, supra; People v Johnson, supra). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
People v. Heaton
neutral
1 sentence1995The amendment, which was to correct an obvious clerical error, did not change the theory of the prosecution (see, People v Grega, 72 NY2d 489, 499 ; see, People v Gray, 157 AD2d 596 ; People v Heaton, 59 AD2d 704 ). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
People of State of New York v. Grega
green
1 sentence1995The amendment, which was to correct an obvious clerical error, did not change the theory of the prosecution (see, People v Grega, 72 NY2d 489, 499 ; see, People v Gray, 157 AD2d 596 ; People v Heaton, 59 AD2d 704 ). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
People ex rel. Dell v. Walker
neutral
1 sentence1993Dell v Walker, 186 AD2d 1043 ). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Campbell v. Bartlett
neutral
1 sentence1992Co. v State Tax Commn., 57 AD2d 201 ; Matter of Campbell v Bartlett, 49 AD2d 762 ; Matter of Bernard v Joy, 123 Misc 2d 401 ). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Turner Construction Co. v. State Tax Commission
green
1 sentence1992Co. v State Tax Commn., 57 AD2d 201 ; Matter of Campbell v Bartlett, 49 AD2d 762 ; Matter of Bernard v Joy, 123 Misc 2d 401 ). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Bernard v. Joy
neutral
1 sentence1992Co. v State Tax Commn., 57 AD2d 201 ; Matter of Campbell v Bartlett, 49 AD2d 762 ; Matter of Bernard v Joy, 123 Misc 2d 401 ). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Matter of Height v. Hicksville Firestone Dealer Store, Inc.
green
1 sentence1982Given these circumstances, the board properly corrected the obvious clerical error as to the attorney’s fee in the November 7, 1980 notice of decision by issuing the corrected notice of November 21, 1980 (see Workers’ Compensation Law, § 123), and the carrier cannot escape its responsibility for payment of the fee by its prompt payment of the entire award to claimant at a time when it was clearly chargeable with knowledge of its responsibility to pay the $100 to claimant’s attorney (cf. Matter of Height v Hicksville Firestone Dealer Store, 35 NY2d 692 ). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
People Ex Rel. Finnegan v. . McBride
green
1 sentence1952Finnegan v. McBride ( 226 N. Y. 252, 258-259 , supra) Judge Pound used the following language in defining the extent of the authority of the commission: 44 The action ■ of the commission, had with due deliberation, upon such a matter as the establishment of an eligible list, should, for obvious reasons, be regarded as a finality, but the commission’s authority thereon does not wholly cease. | 1 | 1952–1952 |
In Re the Several Accountings of the Executors of Tilden
green
1 sentence1933This can be accomplished only upon a demonstration of fraud, newly-discovered evidence, clerical error or “ other sufficient cause,’’ which latter phrase was in Matter of Tilden ( 98 N. Y. 434, 442 ) strictly limited to “ causes of like nature with those specifically named.’’ In Matter of Dunne ( 138 Misc. 840 , 842 et seq.) this court had occasion to review somewhat fully the pertinent decisions in this regard from which the rule was deduced that “ relief of this nature has uniformly been limited to cases in which an obvious clerical error had been committed, in which the court had no jurisdi | 1 | 1933–1933 |
In re the Appraisal of the Estate of Willets
neutral
1 sentence1931(Matter of Severance, 106 Misc. 710, 714 ; affd., 191 App. Div. 885 ; Matter of Backhouse, 110 id. 737, 739; Matter of Silliman, 79 id. 98, 99; affd., 175 N. Y. 513 ; Matter of Willets, 119 App. Div. 119 ; affd., 190 N. Y. 527 ; Matter of Morgan, 164 App. Div. 854, 856 ; affd., 215 N. Y. 703 .) Whereas, therefore, it was said in Matter of Townsend ( 215 N. Y. 442, at p. 446 ) : By subdivision 6 of section 2490, Code of Civil Procedure, the surrogate is authorized ‘ To open, vacate, modify, or set aside or to enter as of a former time, a decree or order of his court; or to grant a new trial or | 1 | 1931–1931 |
In re the Appraisal under the Acts in Relation to Taxable Transfers of Property of Morgan
neutral
1 sentence1931(Matter of Severance, 106 Misc. 710, 714 ; affd., 191 App. Div. 885 ; Matter of Backhouse, 110 id. 737, 739; Matter of Silliman, 79 id. 98, 99; affd., 175 N. Y. 513 ; Matter of Willets, 119 App. Div. 119 ; affd., 190 N. Y. 527 ; Matter of Morgan, 164 App. Div. 854, 856 ; affd., 215 N. Y. 703 .) Whereas, therefore, it was said in Matter of Townsend ( 215 N. Y. 442, at p. 446 ) : By subdivision 6 of section 2490, Code of Civil Procedure, the surrogate is authorized ‘ To open, vacate, modify, or set aside or to enter as of a former time, a decree or order of his court; or to grant a new trial or | 1 | 1931–1931 |
In Re the Accounting of Wanninger
neutral
1 sentence1931(Matter of Severance, 106 Misc. 710, 714 ; affd., 191 App. Div. 885 ; Matter of Backhouse, 110 id. 737, 739; Matter of Silliman, 79 id. 98, 99; affd., 175 N. Y. 513 ; Matter of Willets, 119 App. Div. 119 ; affd., 190 N. Y. 527 ; Matter of Morgan, 164 App. Div. 854, 856 ; affd., 215 N. Y. 703 .) Whereas, therefore, it was said in Matter of Townsend ( 215 N. Y. 442, at p. 446 ) : By subdivision 6 of section 2490, Code of Civil Procedure, the surrogate is authorized ‘ To open, vacate, modify, or set aside or to enter as of a former time, a decree or order of his court; or to grant a new trial or | 1 | 1931–1931 |
In Re the Transfer Tax Upon the Estate of Townsend
neutral
1 sentence1931(Matter of Severance, 106 Misc. 710, 714 ; affd., 191 App. Div. 885 ; Matter of Backhouse, 110 id. 737, 739; Matter of Silliman, 79 id. 98, 99; affd., 175 N. Y. 513 ; Matter of Willets, 119 App. Div. 119 ; affd., 190 N. Y. 527 ; Matter of Morgan, 164 App. Div. 854, 856 ; affd., 215 N. Y. 703 .) Whereas, therefore, it was said in Matter of Townsend ( 215 N. Y. 442, at p. 446 ) : By subdivision 6 of section 2490, Code of Civil Procedure, the surrogate is authorized ‘ To open, vacate, modify, or set aside or to enter as of a former time, a decree or order of his court; or to grant a new trial or | 1 | 1931–1931 |
People Ex Rel. Dubey v. . Swanstrom
neutral
1 sentence1931(Matter of Severance, 106 Misc. 710, 714 ; affd., 191 App. Div. 885 ; Matter of Backhouse, 110 id. 737, 739; Matter of Silliman, 79 id. 98, 99; affd., 175 N. Y. 513 ; Matter of Willets, 119 App. Div. 119 ; affd., 190 N. Y. 527 ; Matter of Morgan, 164 App. Div. 854, 856 ; affd., 215 N. Y. 703 .) Whereas, therefore, it was said in Matter of Townsend ( 215 N. Y. 442, at p. 446 ) : By subdivision 6 of section 2490, Code of Civil Procedure, the surrogate is authorized ‘ To open, vacate, modify, or set aside or to enter as of a former time, a decree or order of his court; or to grant a new trial or | 1 | 1931–1931 |
In Re the Transfer Tax Upon the Estate of Morgan
neutral
1 sentence1931(Matter of Severance, 106 Misc. 710, 714 ; affd., 191 App. Div. 885 ; Matter of Backhouse, 110 id. 737, 739; Matter of Silliman, 79 id. 98, 99; affd., 175 N. Y. 513 ; Matter of Willets, 119 App. Div. 119 ; affd., 190 N. Y. 527 ; Matter of Morgan, 164 App. Div. 854, 856 ; affd., 215 N. Y. 703 .) Whereas, therefore, it was said in Matter of Townsend ( 215 N. Y. 442, at p. 446 ) : By subdivision 6 of section 2490, Code of Civil Procedure, the surrogate is authorized ‘ To open, vacate, modify, or set aside or to enter as of a former time, a decree or order of his court; or to grant a new trial or | 1 | 1931–1931 |
In re the Estate of Severance
neutral
1 sentence1931(Matter of Severance, 106 Misc. 710, 714 ; affd., 191 App. Div. 885 ; Matter of Backhouse, 110 id. 737, 739; Matter of Silliman, 79 id. 98, 99; affd., 175 N. Y. 513 ; Matter of Willets, 119 App. Div. 119 ; affd., 190 N. Y. 527 ; Matter of Morgan, 164 App. Div. 854, 856 ; affd., 215 N. Y. 703 .) Whereas, therefore, it was said in Matter of Townsend ( 215 N. Y. 442, at p. 446 ) : By subdivision 6 of section 2490, Code of Civil Procedure, the surrogate is authorized ‘ To open, vacate, modify, or set aside or to enter as of a former time, a decree or order of his court; or to grant a new trial or | 1 | 1931–1931 |
In re Estate of Severance
neutral
1 sentence1931(Matter of Severance, 106 Misc. 710, 714 ; affd., 191 App. Div. 885 ; Matter of Backhouse, 110 id. 737, 739; Matter of Silliman, 79 id. 98, 99; affd., 175 N. Y. 513 ; Matter of Willets, 119 App. Div. 119 ; affd., 190 N. Y. 527 ; Matter of Morgan, 164 App. Div. 854, 856 ; affd., 215 N. Y. 703 .) Whereas, therefore, it was said in Matter of Townsend ( 215 N. Y. 442, at p. 446 ) : By subdivision 6 of section 2490, Code of Civil Procedure, the surrogate is authorized ‘ To open, vacate, modify, or set aside or to enter as of a former time, a decree or order of his court; or to grant a new trial or | 1 | 1931–1931 |
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.