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 1922–2015 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. Narayangreen2 sentences2015This Court has applied the commonsense principle that if defense counsel is present to bring an error to the trial court’s attention, counsel must register a protest where the error, if called to the court’s attention, “would afford the trial court opportunity promptly to rescind any directive violative of the defendant’s right of access to counsel or otherwise to cure the error” (P eople v Narayan, 54 NY2d 106, 112 [1981]). 2015This Court has applied the common sense principle that if defense counsel is present to bring an error to the trial court's attention, counsel must register a protest where the error, if called to the court's attention, "would afford the trial court opportunity promptly to rescind any directive violative of the defendant's right of access to counsel or otherwise to cure the error" (People v Narayan, 54 NY2d 106, 112 [1981]). | 2 | 3 |
City of Rochester v. Chiarellagreen2 sentences2009Petitioners’ allegation that such an obligation was excused on a “duress” rationale is not supported by our precedent (City of Rochester v Chiarella, 58 NY2d 316, 323 [1983] [“duress ... is present . . . where payment of a tax is necessary to avoid threatened interference with present liberty of person or immediate possession of property”]). 2009Petitioners' allegation that such an obligation was excused on a "duress" rationale is not supported by our precedent ( City of Rochester v Chiarella, 58 NY2d 316, 323 [1983] ["duress . . . is present . . . where payment of a tax is necessary to avoid threatened interference with present liberty of person or immediate possession of property"]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Jonesgreen1 sentence1985While we have the discretionary power to reverse a judgment based upon our review of an unpreserved issue when the interest of justice so requires (CPL 470.15; see, People v Jones, 81 AD2d 22 ), the challenged charge error does not require us to do so in the instant case. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Town of Somerset v. Perry
green
2 sentences2013Therefore, under the circumstances alleged in the complaint, the protest requirement is inapplicable (see Genesee Brewing Co. v Village of Sodus Point, 126 Misc 2d 827 [1984], affd for reasons stated 115 AD2d 313 [1985]). 2013Therefore, under the circumstances alleged in the complaint, the protest requirement is inapplicable (see Genesee Brewing Co. v Village of Sodus Point, 126 Misc 2d 827 [1984], affd for reasons stated 115 AD2d 313 [1985]). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Genesee Brewing Co. v. Village of Sodus Point
green
2 sentences2013Therefore, under the circumstances alleged in the complaint, the protest requirement is inapplicable (see Genesee Brewing Co. v Village of Sodus Point, 126 Misc 2d 827 [1984], affd for reasons stated 115 AD2d 313 [1985]). 2013Therefore, under the circumstances alleged in the complaint, the protest requirement is inapplicable (see Genesee Brewing Co. v Village of Sodus Point, 126 Misc 2d 827 [1984], affd for reasons stated 115 AD2d 313 [1985]). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Umali
green
2 sentences2015We reaffirmed that principle in People v Umali ( 10 NY3d 417 [2008]). 2015We reaffirmed that principle in People v Umali ( 10 NY3d 417 , [2008]). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Margan
green
1 sentence2011The majority relies on Margan ( 157 AD2d at 70 ) which distinguishes Narayan as standing for the oxymoronic-like proposition that counsel has to be “actually present” at the time an erroneous ruling respecting right to counsel is made in order to object for the record. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Corporate Property Investors v. Board of Assessors
green
1 sentence1990Investors v Board of Assessors, 153 AD2d 656 .) In the case at bar, plaintiffs have failed to establish compliance with the protest requirement. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Garden City Center Associates v. Board of Assessors
green
1 sentence1989In addition, we note that under this court’s holding in Garden City Center Assocs. v Board of Assessors ( 153 AD2d 667 ), the commencement of the instant proceeding, which included an explicit claim for tax refunds owing as a result of the improper assessments, also satisfied the protest requirement with respect to tax payments made subsequent thereto and while the action was still pending. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Geders v. United States
green
1 sentence1981Without in any way depreciating the stature of the constitutionally protected right of a criminal defendant effectively to confer with counsel and not to be deprived of that right of consultation for any substantial period of time (Geders v United States, 425 US 80 ), we find no justification for departing from the requirement that trial court error (here interference with that right) must be brought to the court’s attention by protest timely made, at least where counsel acting on defendant’s behalf is present and available to register a protest and where the error if called to the court’s att | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Pisciotta v. City of New York
neutral
1 sentence1951The right to recover wages in a case such as this is made subject to the condition that failure to note a protest is a bar to recovery in an action for salary differential (Administrative Code, § 93c-2.0; Quayle v. City of New York, 278 N. Y. 19, 24 ; Pisciotta v. City of New York, 300 N. Y. 664 , motion for reargument denied, 300 N. Y. 755 ). | 1 | 1951–1951 |
Quayle v. City of New York
green
1 sentence1951The right to recover wages in a case such as this is made subject to the condition that failure to note a protest is a bar to recovery in an action for salary differential (Administrative Code, § 93c-2.0; Quayle v. City of New York, 278 N. Y. 19, 24 ; Pisciotta v. City of New York, 300 N. Y. 664 , motion for reargument denied, 300 N. Y. 755 ). | 1 | 1951–1951 |
Pisciotta v. City of New York
neutral
1 sentence1951The right to recover wages in a case such as this is made subject to the condition that failure to note a protest is a bar to recovery in an action for salary differential (Administrative Code, § 93c-2.0; Quayle v. City of New York, 278 N. Y. 19, 24 ; Pisciotta v. City of New York, 300 N. Y. 664 , motion for reargument denied, 300 N. Y. 755 ). | 1 | 1951–1951 |
United States v. Diekelman
green
1 sentence1922As the court said in United States v. Diekelman (supra): “ It rests with the sovereign against whom the demand is made to determine for himself what he will do in respect to it.” In the instant case a defense to the jurisdiction of the court and a protest against its exercise was submitted to the court. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
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.