78 New York opinions name it 7 courts 1898–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fair v. Fuchsgreen2 sentences2023Corp. v Insurance Co. of N. Am. , 219 AD2d 454, 454 [1st Dept 1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 804 [1995]). 2019Corp. v Insurance Co. of N. Am. , 219 AD2d 454, 454 ; see Platek v Town of Hamburg , 24 NY3d at 694 ). | 2 | 4 |
Seaboard Surety Co. v. Gillette Co.green2 sentences2018Co. v Gillette Co. , 64 NY2d 304, 311 [1984]). 2008Co. v Kozlowski, 18 AD3d 33, 41 [1st Dept 2005] [“(t)he ultimate validity of the underlying complaint’s allegations is irrelevant”].) In New York, insurers claiming an exception or exclusion to coverage bear a heavy burden to demonstrate the applicability of the exclusion or exception to coverage in the particular case (Seaboard Sun Co., 64 NY2d 304 [1984]). | 2 | 3 |
Continental Casualty Co. v. Rapid-American Corp.green2 sentences2009Co. v Rapid-American Corp., 80 NY2d 640, 652 [1993]; see RJC Realty Holding Corp. v Republic Franklin Ins. 1996Co. v Rapid-American Corp., 80 NY2d, at 653, supra). | 2 | 3 |
National Football League v. Vigilant Insurancegreen2 sentences2022Co. , 36 AD3d 207, 211 [1st Dept 2006]), we find that the exclusion does not bar CastlePoint's claims because Trumbull was an additional insured with respect to the subject premises. 2022Co. , 36 AD3d 207, 211 [1st Dept 2006]), we find that the exclusion does not bar CastlePoint's claims because Trumbull was an additional insured with respect to the subject premises. | 2 | 2 |
In re the Claim of Druggreen2 sentences2013As the record contains substantial evidence supporting the factual finding of the Board that claimant was “in regular attendance as a student” and, therefore, ineligible for benefits pursuant to the statute, we will not disturb its determination (see Labor Law § 511 [15]; Matter of Siu [Sweeney], 244 AD2d at 690 ; Matter of Sukhov [Sweeney], 243 AD2d at 1024-1025 ; compare Matter of Druc [Hudacs], 205 AD2d 1004, 1004-1005 [1994]). 2013As the record contains substantial evidence supporting the factual finding of the Board that claimant was “in regular attendance as a student” and, therefore, ineligible for benefits pursuant to the statute, we will not disturb its determination (see Labor Law § 511 [15]; Matter of Siu [Sweeney], 244 AD2d at 690 ; Matter of Sukhov [Sweeney], 243 AD2d at 1024-1025 ; compare Matter of Druc [Hudacs], 205 AD2d 1004, 1004-1005 [1994]). | 2 | 2 |
Waller v. Georgiagreen2 sentences2013The requirement that the courtroom be open whenever possible and that closure orders be narrowly tailored “is for the benefit of the accused; that the public may see he is fairly dealt with and not unjustly condemned, and that the presence of interested spectators may keep his triers keenly alive to a sense of their responsibility and to the importance of their functions” (Waller v Georgia, 467 US 39, 46 [1984] [internal quotation marks omitted]). 2013The requirement that the courtroom be open whenever possible and that closure orders be narrowly tailored “is for the benefit of the accused; that the public may see he is fairly dealt with and not unjustly condemned, and that the presence of interested spectators may keep his triers keenly alive to a sense of their responsibility and to the importance of their functions” (Waller v Georgia, 467 US 39, 46 [1984] [internal quotation marks omitted]). | 2 | 2 |
In re the Claim of Sukhovgreen2 sentences2013Labor Law § 511 (15) excludes from employment “services rendered for an educational institution by a person who is enrolled and is in regular attendance as a student in such an institution.” The determination of whether a claim falls into this exclusion requires an inquiry into the facts and circumstances of the employment to determine whether the primary purpose of the work was to earn a living or to further the claimant’s education (see Matter of Siu [Sweeney], 244 AD2d 689, 690 [1997]; Matter of Sukhov [Sweeney], 243 AD2d 1024, 1024 [1997]). 2013Labor Law § 511 (15) excludes from employment “services rendered for an educational institution by a person who is enrolled and is in regular attendance as a student in such an institution.” The determination of whether a claim falls into this exclusion requires an inquiry into the facts and circumstances of the employment to determine whether the primary purpose of the work was to earn a living or to further the claimant’s education (see Matter of Siu [Sweeney], 244 AD2d 689, 690 [1997]; Matter of Sukhov [Sweeney], 243 AD2d 1024, 1024 [1997]). | 2 | 2 |
In re the Claim of Rushgreen2 sentences2013Labor Law § 511 (15) excludes from employment “services rendered for an educational institution by a person who is enrolled and is in regular attendance as a student in such an institution.” The determination of whether a claim falls into this exclusion requires an inquiry into the facts and circumstances of the employment to determine whether the primary purpose of the work was to earn a living or to further the claimant’s education (see Matter of Siu [Sweeney], 244 AD2d 689, 690 [1997]; Matter of Sukhov [Sweeney], 243 AD2d 1024, 1024 [1997]). 2013Labor Law § 511 (15) excludes from employment “services rendered for an educational institution by a person who is enrolled and is in regular attendance as a student in such an institution.” The determination of whether a claim falls into this exclusion requires an inquiry into the facts and circumstances of the employment to determine whether the primary purpose of the work was to earn a living or to further the claimant’s education (see Matter of Siu [Sweeney], 244 AD2d 689, 690 [1997]; Matter of Sukhov [Sweeney], 243 AD2d 1024, 1024 [1997]). | 2 | 2 |
International Paper Co. v. Continental Casualty Co.green2 sentences2002Co., 35 NY2d 322, 325 [1974]; Technicon, 74 NY2d at 73-74 ). 1995Co., 35 NY2d 322, 325 )” (Technicon Elecs. | 1 | 6 |
Frederick J. Platek v. Town of Hamberg / Allstate Indemnity Companygreen2 sentences2023Given the aforementioned, " '[w]here a property insurance policy contains an exclusion with an exception for ensuing loss, courts have sought to assure that the exception does not supersede the exclusion by disallowing coverage for ensuing loss directly related to the original excluded risk' " ( id. at 694 ; see Narob Dev. 2019Corp. v Insurance Co. of N. Am. , 219 AD2d 454, 454 ; see Platek v Town of Hamburg , 24 NY3d at 694 ). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Santiagogreen1 sentence2024Footnote 15: As one New York jurist has suggested, Holmes throws the constitutionality of permitting consideration of the prosecution's corroboration completely into doubt ( People v Santiago , 75 AD3d 163, 177 [1st Dept 2010] [McGuire, J., concurring], revd , 17 NY3d at 673 [holding, pre- McCullough , that the prosecution's corroborating evidence was not "sufficient to obviate the second stage of the LeGrand analysis"]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Santiagogreen1 sentence2024Footnote 15: As one New York jurist has suggested, Holmes throws the constitutionality of permitting consideration of the prosecution's corroboration completely into doubt ( People v Santiago , 75 AD3d 163, 177 [1st Dept 2010] [McGuire, J., concurring], revd , 17 NY3d at 673 [holding, pre- McCullough , that the prosecution's corroborating evidence was not "sufficient to obviate the second stage of the LeGrand analysis"]). | 1 | 1 |
Jeffrey Washington v. Sunny Schriver, Superintendent, Wallkill Correctional Facilitygreen1 sentence2024Despite our clear position in Boone , the trial court had reservations about the necessity of the expert testimony regarding the reliability of cross-race identifications, commenting that the "expert . . . is going to be teaching the jury something that they know" and that it "d[id]n't find it a big loss to [defendant] if this witness didn't testify at all" but, as a purported act of grace, allowed the testimony "to give the defense latitude." Footnote 14: The Second Circuit has held that a trial court's exclusion of defense evidence violates the Constitution any time "the omitted evidence eva | 1 | 1 |
Jungmann Co., Inc. v. Atterbury Bros., Inc.green1 sentence2021Once the condition arises, it does not matter that plaintiff "suffered no harm" ( Oppenheimer , 86 NY2d at 693 ; see Jungmann & Co. v Atterbury Bros., 249 NY 119, 121-122 [1928]). | 1 | 1 |
Rock v. Arkansasgreen1 sentence2018See Holmes [ v South Carolina , 547 US 319, 331 (2006)] (rule did not rationally serve any discernible purpose); Rock v. Arkansas , 483 U.S. 44, 61 (1987) (rule arbitrary); Chambers v. Mississippi , 410 U.S. 284, 302-303 (1973) (State did not even attempt to explain the reason for its rule); Washington v. Texas , 388 U.S. 14, 22 (1967) (rule could not be rationally defended)" ( Nevada v Jackson , 569 US 505, 509 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]). | 1 | 1 |
Holmes v. South Carolinagreen1 sentence2018See Holmes [ v South Carolina , 547 US 319, 331 (2006)] (rule did not rationally serve any discernible purpose); Rock v. Arkansas , 483 U.S. 44, 61 (1987) (rule arbitrary); Chambers v. Mississippi , 410 U.S. 284, 302-303 (1973) (State did not even attempt to explain the reason for its rule); Washington v. Texas , 388 U.S. 14, 22 (1967) (rule could not be rationally defended)" ( Nevada v Jackson , 569 US 505, 509 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]). | 1 | 1 |
Washington v. Texasgreen1 sentence2018See Holmes [ v South Carolina , 547 US 319, 331 (2006)] (rule did not rationally serve any discernible purpose); Rock v. Arkansas , 483 U.S. 44, 61 (1987) (rule arbitrary); Chambers v. Mississippi , 410 U.S. 284, 302-303 (1973) (State did not even attempt to explain the reason for its rule); Washington v. Texas , 388 U.S. 14, 22 (1967) (rule could not be rationally defended)" ( Nevada v Jackson , 569 US 505, 509 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]). | 1 | 1 |
Chambers v. Mississippigreen1 sentence2018See Holmes [ v South Carolina , 547 US 319, 331 (2006)] (rule did not rationally serve any discernible purpose); Rock v. Arkansas , 483 U.S. 44, 61 (1987) (rule arbitrary); Chambers v. Mississippi , 410 U.S. 284, 302-303 (1973) (State did not even attempt to explain the reason for its rule); Washington v. Texas , 388 U.S. 14, 22 (1967) (rule could not be rationally defended)" ( Nevada v Jackson , 569 US 505, 509 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]). | 1 | 1 |
Nevada v. Jacksongreen1 sentence2018See Holmes [ v South Carolina , 547 US 319, 331 (2006)] (rule did not rationally serve any discernible purpose); Rock v. Arkansas , 483 U.S. 44, 61 (1987) (rule arbitrary); Chambers v. Mississippi , 410 U.S. 284, 302-303 (1973) (State did not even attempt to explain the reason for its rule); Washington v. Texas , 388 U.S. 14, 22 (1967) (rule could not be rationally defended)" ( Nevada v Jackson , 569 US 505, 509 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]). | 1 | 1 |
Federal Insurance v. Kozlowskigreen1 sentence2008Co. v Kozlowski, 18 AD3d 33, 41 [1st Dept 2005] [“(t)he ultimate validity of the underlying complaint’s allegations is irrelevant”].) In New York, insurers claiming an exception or exclusion to coverage bear a heavy burden to demonstrate the applicability of the exclusion or exception to coverage in the particular case (Seaboard Sun Co., 64 NY2d 304 [1984]). | 1 | 1 |
| Fitzpatrick v. American Honda Motor Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Insurance Co. of North America v. Dayton Tool & Die Works, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Lederer v. Lederergreen | 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. Vargas
green
2 sentences2015In People v Vargas, this Court upheld the exclusion of defense counsel from a conference to discuss a potential juror's fear of the defendant prior to voir dire ( 88 NY2d 363 [1996]). 2015In People v Vargas, this Court upheld the exclusion of defense counsel from a conference to discuss a potential juror’s fear of the defendant prior to voir dire ( 88 NY2d 363 [1996]). | 2 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Echevarria
green
2 sentences2013Defendant’s counsel offered no alternatives to the court’s order, other than that defendant be present throughout the Wade hearing. 1 Although we find no error in the court’s handling of the Wade hearing, we conclude defendant’s right to a public trial was violated by the exclusion of defense counsel’s colleague during the trial testimony of the undercover. 2 In People v Echevarria ( 21 NY3d 1 [2013]), the Court of Appeals emphasized that there is a presumption of openness and that violation of the right to a public trial is not subject to harmless error analysis. 2013Defendant’s counsel offered no alternatives to the court’s order, other than that defendant be present throughout the Wade hearing. 1 Although we find no error in the court’s handling of the Wade hearing, we conclude defendant’s right to a public trial was violated by the exclusion of defense counsel’s colleague during the trial testimony of the undercover. 2 In People v Echevarria ( 21 NY3d 1 [2013]), the Court of Appeals emphasized that there is a presumption of openness and that violation of the right to a public trial is not subject to harmless error analysis. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Technicon Electronics Corp. v. American Home Assurance Co.
green
2 sentences2002Co., 35 NY2d 322, 325 [1974]; Technicon, 74 NY2d at 73-74 ). 1989As we noted in Technicon, the exclusion clause is "unambiguously plain and operative” ( 74 NY2d, at 71 ), and represents only a single discrete exception to the insurer’s obligation to indemnify under the policy. | 2 | 1989–2002 |
Allstate Insurance v. Mugavero
green
2 sentences1998Co. v Mugavero, 79 NY2d 153, 164 ; see also, Allstate Ins. 1998An exclusion clause that bars coverage for acts by “the” insured, on the other hand, permits recovery by the innocent coinsured ( 79 NY2d, at 163-164 ). | 2 | 1996–1998 |
Borg-Warner Corp. v. Insurance Co. of North America
green
1 sentence2024Co. , 171 AD3d at 707, quoting Borg-Warner Corp. v Insurance Co. of N. Am. , 174 AD2d 24, 31 ). "'Where a property insurance policy contains an exclusion with an exception for ensuing loss, courts have sought to assure that the exception does not supersede the exclusion by disallowing coverage for ensuing loss directly related to the original excluded risk'" ( Fruchthandler v Tri-State Consumer Ins. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Deas
green
1 sentence2022As such, the defendant's exclusion from the hearing did not have a substantial relationship to his ability to defend against the charges against him ( see People v Fermin , 150 AD3d 876, 878 ). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Oppenheimer & Co. v. Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon & Co.
green
1 sentence2021Once the condition arises, it does not matter that plaintiff "suffered no harm" ( Oppenheimer , 86 NY2d at 693 ; see Jungmann & Co. v Atterbury Bros., 249 NY 119, 121-122 [1928]). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Jahier v. Liberty Mutual Group
green
1 sentence2016Group, 64 AD3d at 685 ). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Landmark Insurance v. Beau Rivage Restaurant, Inc.
green
1 sentence2004Co. v Beau Rivage Rest., supra). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Maksymowicz v. New York City Board of Education
green
1 sentence2002The contract between the parties constituted an “insured contract” and thus, the exclusion clause of the insurance policy, which defendants and third-party plaintiffs claim is applicable herein, does not apply (see, Maksymowicz v New York City Bd. of Educ., 232 AD2d 223 ). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| People v. Castillo green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| People v. Darby green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Peterson v. Stafford green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Hailey v. New York State Electric & Gas Corp. green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Reed v. Federal Insurance green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Planet Ins. Co. v. BRIGHT BAY green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Consolidated Edison Co. v. Jet Asphalt Corp. green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Allstate Insurance v. Zuk neutral | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Allstate Insurance v. Jack S green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| In re the Arbitration between Nyack Board of Education & Nyack Teachers Ass'n neutral | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Wienke v. Wienke neutral | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Dunaway v. New York green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Fagnani v. American Home Assurance Co. neutral | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| People v. Schaffer green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Kronfeld v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Heiser v. Gibson green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Breed v. Insurance Co. of North America green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| North American Iron & Steel Co. v. Isaacson Steel Erectors, Inc. neutral | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Direen Operating Corp. v. State Tax Commission neutral | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Durant v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp. green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| North American Iron & Steel Co. v. Isaacson Steel Erectors, Inc. neutral | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| People v. Fine green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Matter of Kilgus v. Bd. of Estimate of City of Ny green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| Green v. Travelers Insurance green | 1 | 1971–1971 |
| Carles v. Travelers Insurance green | 1 | 1971–1971 |
| McCree v. Jenning neutral | 1 | 1969–1969 |
| Danerhirsch v. Travelers Indemnity Co. neutral | 1 | 1969–1969 |
| Allstate Insurance Co. v. Shelby Mutual Ins. Co. green | 1 | 1969–1969 |
| In re Michealson green | 1 | 1966–1966 |
| B & H Management Corp. v. Hardware Mutual Casualty Co. neutral | 1 | 1966–1966 |
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.