11 New York opinions name it 4 courts 2006–2025 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
Policano v. Herbertgreen2 sentences2024The second and third factors are, however, only given substantial weight when the answer to the retroactivity question is not to be found in the purpose of the new rule itself. 'Thus, where otherwise there could be a complete miscarriage of justice, current constitutional standards that go to the heart of a reliable determination of guilt or innocence have been substituted for those in effect at the time of trial'" ( Policano v Herbert , 7 NY3d 588, 603 [2006] [internal citation and quotation marks omitted], quoting People v Pepper , 53 NY2d 213, 221 [1981]). 2024The second and third factors are, however, only given substantial weight when the answer to the retroactivity question is not to be found in the purpose of the new rule itself. 'Thus, where otherwise there could be a complete miscarriage of justice, current constitutional standards that go to the heart of a reliable determination of guilt or innocence have been substituted for those in effect at the time of trial'" ( Policano v Herbert , 7 NY3d 588, 603 [2006] [internal citation and quotation marks omitted], quoting People v Pepper , 53 NY2d 213, 221 [1981]). | 5 | 7 |
People v. Peppergreen2 sentences2024The second and third factors are, however, only given substantial weight when the answer to the retroactivity question is not to be found in the purpose of the new rule itself. 'Thus, where otherwise there could be a complete miscarriage of justice, current constitutional standards that go to the heart of a reliable determination of guilt or innocence have been substituted for those in effect at the time of trial'" ( Policano v Herbert , 7 NY3d 588, 603 [2006] [internal citation and quotation marks omitted], quoting People v Pepper , 53 NY2d 213, 221 [1981]). 2024The second and third factors are, however, only given substantial weight when the answer to the retroactivity question is not to be found in the purpose of the new rule itself. 'Thus, where otherwise there could be a complete miscarriage of justice, current constitutional standards that go to the heart of a reliable determination of guilt or innocence have been substituted for those in effect at the time of trial'" ( Policano v Herbert , 7 NY3d 588, 603 [2006] [internal citation and quotation marks omitted], quoting People v Pepper , 53 NY2d 213, 221 [1981]). | 3 | 8 |
Matter of Matthews.green1 sentence2025In assessing whether an applicant for reinstatement has satisfied his or her burden concerning the second and third factors, we consider both the conduct that led to his or her disbarment and his or her conduct following the order of disbarment ( see Matter of Matthews , 187 AD3d at 1484), and, as to the third prong, the applicant seeking reinstatement should likewise provide "assurances that no detriment would inure to the public by reason of [his or her] return to practice, and that his or her reinstatement would be of some tangible benefit to the public" ( Matter of Sullivan , 153 AD3d at 1 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Gradygreen1 sentence2021We nevertheless conclude that, after considering all of the relevant factors, defendant's state constitutional due process rights were not violated because his defense to the charge of which he was convicted was not prejudiced in any conceivable respect by the preindictment delay ( see People v Grady , 111 AD2d 932, 932 [2d Dept 1985]). | 1 | 1 |
Desist v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2006The second and third factors are, however, only given substantial weight “when the answer to the retroactivity question is not to be found in the purpose of the new rule itself’ id. at 220 , citing Desist v United States, 394 US 244, 249 [1969]). | 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. Baret
green
2 sentences2024"Under the first and most important factor, 'current constitutional standards that go to the heart of a reliable determination of guilt or innocence' will be applied retroactively, but 'decisions which are only collateral to or relatively far removed from the fact-finding process at trial' apply prospectively only" ( Baret , 23 NY3d at 799-800 , quoting Pepper , 53 NY2d at 221 ). 2023Although [*4]the first factor is the most important ( see People v Baret , 23 NY3d at 799 ), the second and third factors also favor nonretroactivity here. | 4 | 2023–2024 |
Matter of Sullivan
green
1 sentence2025In assessing whether an applicant for reinstatement has satisfied his or her burden concerning the second and third factors, we consider both the conduct that led to his or her disbarment and his or her conduct following the order of disbarment ( see Matter of Matthews , 187 AD3d at 1484), and, as to the third prong, the applicant seeking reinstatement should likewise provide "assurances that no detriment would inure to the public by reason of [his or her] return to practice, and that his or her reinstatement would be of some tangible benefit to the public" ( Matter of Sullivan , 153 AD3d at 1 | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Mitchell
green
1 sentence2023Notably, were we to agree with defendant, retroactive application of the new constitutional rule would have a widespread impact undermining other investigations and prosecutions performed by the Justice Center for reasons that are wholly unrelated to the fact-finding process ( see id. at 793-794 ; Policano v Herbert , 7 NY3d at 604 ; People v Mitchell , 80 NY2d at 529 ; People v Pepper , 53 NY2d at 222 ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Baker
green
1 sentence2023Contrary to the majority’s assertion that Bruen does not directly implicate the constitutional issues at play in People v Baker ( 23 NY2d 307 [1968]) and Patterson ( 39 NY2d at 295 - 296; Cabrera, decided today, majority op at 16), Bruen is indistinguishable in that its holding is at the core of the constitutional challenges raised here. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Patterson
green
1 sentence2023Contrary to the majority’s assertion that Bruen does not directly implicate the constitutional issues at play in People v Baker ( 23 NY2d 307 [1968]) and Patterson ( 39 NY2d at 295 - 296; Cabrera, decided today, majority op at 16), Bruen is indistinguishable in that its holding is at the core of the constitutional challenges raised here. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Jean-Baptiste
green
1 sentence2018"Courts are not generous in applying new rules of law to collateral proceedings, given the underlying considerations of finality'" ( People v Jean-Baptiste , 11 NY3d 539, 543 , quoting People v Favor , 82 NY2d at 261 n 2). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Favor
green
1 sentence2018"Courts are not generous in applying new rules of law to collateral proceedings, given the underlying considerations of finality'" ( People v Jean-Baptiste , 11 NY3d 539, 543 , quoting People v Favor , 82 NY2d at 261 n 2). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.