76 New York opinions name it 16 courts 1962–2026 12 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. Huntleygreen2 sentences2023Furthermore, the form authorizing searches by [*3]itself should not be construed "as an unrestricted consent to any and all searches whatsoever or as a blanket waiver of all constitutional rights to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures" ( People v Huntley , 43 NY2d 175, 182 [1977]). 2023Furthermore, the form authorizing searches by [*3]itself should not be construed "as an unrestricted consent to any and all searches whatsoever or as a blanket waiver of all constitutional rights to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures" ( People v Huntley , 43 NY2d 175, 182 [1977]). | 4 | 5 |
Gould v. New York City Police Departmentgreen2 sentences2025Footnote 3: Indeed, courts may, in some circumstances, uphold a party's blanket claim of attorney-client privilege over a specific subset of documents where an attorney-client relationship has been established, where the court determines that the "withheld documents fall entirely within the scope of the asserted exemption," and where the agency articulates a "particularized and specific justification" for not disclosing the requested documents ( see Gould , 89 NY2d at 275; cf. Matter of Lesher v Hynes , 19 NY3d 57, 66-67 [2012] [permitting, in certain instances, a law enforcement agency to mak 2025Footnote 3: Indeed, courts may, in some circumstances, uphold a party's blanket claim of attorney-client privilege over a specific subset of documents where an attorney-client relationship has been established, where the court determines that the "withheld documents fall entirely within the scope of the asserted exemption," and where the agency articulates a "particularized and specific justification" for not disclosing the requested documents ( see Gould , 89 NY2d at 275; cf. Matter of Lesher v Hynes , 19 NY3d 57, 66-67 [2012] [permitting, in certain instances, a law enforcement agency to mak | 3 | 3 |
Park Summit Realty Corp. v. Frankgreen2 sentences2024Owners, Inc. , 83 AD3d 129 [2011], whereas in the rent-stabilized context the Appellate Term in the First Department imposed a blanket rule that a holdover does not lie for mere nonpayment of rent ( see Park Summit Realty Corp. v Frank , 107 Misc 2d 318, 324 [App Term, 1st Dept 1980], affd 84 AD2d 700 [1981], affd on other grounds 56 NY2d 1025 [1982]). 2024Owners, Inc. , 83 AD3d 129 [2011], whereas in the rent-stabilized context the Appellate Term in the First Department imposed a blanket rule that a holdover does not lie for mere nonpayment of rent ( see Park Summit Realty Corp. v Frank , 107 Misc 2d 318, 324 [App Term, 1st Dept 1980], affd 84 AD2d 700 [1981], affd on other grounds 56 NY2d 1025 [1982]). | 2 | 2 |
Johnson v. New York City Police Departmentgreen2 sentences2014We agree with the dissent’s observation that the public safety exemption of Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (f) does not warrant a blanket exception for DD5s * that reveal the identity of individuals (see Matter of Gould v New York City Police Dept., 89 NY2d 267, 277 [1996]; Matter of Johnson v New York City Police Dept., 257 AD2d 343, 349 [1st Dept 1999]). 2014We agree with the dissent’s observation that the public safety exemption of Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (f) does not warrant a blanket exception for DD5s * that reveal the identity of individuals (see Matter of Gould v New York City Police Dept., 89 NY2d 267, 277 [1996]; Matter of Johnson v New York City Police Dept., 257 AD2d 343, 349 [1st Dept 1999]). | 2 | 2 |
The Matter of Viking Pump Inc. and Warren Pumps LLCgreen2 sentences2017Rather than "adopting a blanket rule, based on policy concerns," the court must "look to the language of the policy" above all else ( In re Viking Pump, Inc., 27 N.Y.3d 244 , 257, 33 N.Y.S.3d 118 , 52 N.E.3d 1144 [2016] ). 2017Rather than "adopting a blanket rule, based on policy concerns," the court must "look to the language of the policy" above all else ( In re Viking Pump, Inc., 27 N.Y.3d 244 , 257, 33 N.Y.S.3d 118 , 52 N.E.3d 1144 [2016] ). | 1 | 2 |
Toner v. Lederle Laboratoriesgreen2 sentences2003They further emphasize that blanket immunity from tort liability would remove an incentive for developing safer designs ( see Toner , 112 Idaho at 341 , 732 P2d at 310 ). 2003They further emphasize that blanket immunity from tort liability would remove an incentive for developing safer designs ( see Toner , 112 Idaho at 341 , 732 P2d at 310 ). | 1 | 2 |
Farbman v. NYC HEALTH & HOSPS.green2 sentences1996Although the Court did make this important point in Farbman, the Court also concluded, as an independent ground of decision, that ”[g]iven FOIL’S purpose, its broad implementing language, and the narrowness of its exemptions, [CPLR] article 31 cannot be read as a blanket exception from its reach. * * * Nowhere in FOIL * * * is there specific reference to records already subject to production under article 31, and no provision of FOIL bars simultaneous use of both statutes” ( 62 NY2d, at 81 ). 1996Although the Court did make this important point in Farbman , the Court also concluded, as an independent ground of decision, that "[g]iven FOIL's purpose, its broad implementing language, and the narrowness of its exemptions, [CPLR] article 31 cannot be read as a blanket exception from its reach. * * * Nowhere in FOIL * * * is there specific reference to records already subject to production under article 31, and no provision of FOIL bars simultaneous use of both statutes" ( 62 NY2d, at 81 ). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Luperongreen2 sentences1995This contention is untenable in light of the Court of Appeals decision in People v Luperon ( 85 NY2d 71, 79 [1995]) wherein the Court expressly declined "to adopt a blanket exception for 'reasonable administrative delay.’ ” Pursuant to that decision, the People must show the exercise of due diligence in both the processing and execution of a bench warrant. 1995However, upon remand, the People may not, as they have urged on appeal, rely on a minimum two-week exclusion for warrant processing time, or any other "blanket period.” The Court of Appeals has explicitly declined "to adopt a blanket exception for 'reasonable administrative delay’ ” (People v Luperon, supra, at 79 ). | 1 | 2 |
Andrew v. Hurhgreen1 sentence2026This blanket rule had previously been followed by the Fourth Department ( see Andrew v Hurh , 34 AD3d 1331, 1331 [4th Dept 2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 808 [2007]; Rokitka v Barrett , 303 AD2d 983, 984 [4th Dept 2003]; Bonner v Lee , 255 AD2d 1005, 1005 [4th Dept 1998]; Casey v Tan , 255 AD2d 900, 900 [4th Dept 1998]; Stark v Semeran , 244 AD2d 894, 894 [4th Dept 1997], lv dismissed 91 NY2d 956 [1998]; Rook v 60 Key Ctr. , 239 AD2d 926, 927 [4th Dept 1997]; see also Finger v Brande , 306 AD2d 104, 104 [1st Dept 2003]; McGee v Family Care Servs. , 246 AD2d 308, 308 [1st Dept 1998]). | 1 | 1 |
Rook v. 60 Key Centre, Inc.green1 sentence2026This blanket rule had previously been followed by the Fourth Department ( see Andrew v Hurh , 34 AD3d 1331, 1331 [4th Dept 2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 808 [2007]; Rokitka v Barrett , 303 AD2d 983, 984 [4th Dept 2003]; Bonner v Lee , 255 AD2d 1005, 1005 [4th Dept 1998]; Casey v Tan , 255 AD2d 900, 900 [4th Dept 1998]; Stark v Semeran , 244 AD2d 894, 894 [4th Dept 1997], lv dismissed 91 NY2d 956 [1998]; Rook v 60 Key Ctr. , 239 AD2d 926, 927 [4th Dept 1997]; see also Finger v Brande , 306 AD2d 104, 104 [1st Dept 2003]; McGee v Family Care Servs. , 246 AD2d 308, 308 [1st Dept 1998]). | 1 | 1 |
Stark v. Semerangreen1 sentence2026This blanket rule had previously been followed by the Fourth Department ( see Andrew v Hurh , 34 AD3d 1331, 1331 [4th Dept 2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 808 [2007]; Rokitka v Barrett , 303 AD2d 983, 984 [4th Dept 2003]; Bonner v Lee , 255 AD2d 1005, 1005 [4th Dept 1998]; Casey v Tan , 255 AD2d 900, 900 [4th Dept 1998]; Stark v Semeran , 244 AD2d 894, 894 [4th Dept 1997], lv dismissed 91 NY2d 956 [1998]; Rook v 60 Key Ctr. , 239 AD2d 926, 927 [4th Dept 1997]; see also Finger v Brande , 306 AD2d 104, 104 [1st Dept 2003]; McGee v Family Care Servs. , 246 AD2d 308, 308 [1st Dept 1998]). | 1 | 1 |
McGee v. Family Care Servicesgreen1 sentence2026This blanket rule had previously been followed by the Fourth Department ( see Andrew v Hurh , 34 AD3d 1331, 1331 [4th Dept 2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 808 [2007]; Rokitka v Barrett , 303 AD2d 983, 984 [4th Dept 2003]; Bonner v Lee , 255 AD2d 1005, 1005 [4th Dept 1998]; Casey v Tan , 255 AD2d 900, 900 [4th Dept 1998]; Stark v Semeran , 244 AD2d 894, 894 [4th Dept 1997], lv dismissed 91 NY2d 956 [1998]; Rook v 60 Key Ctr. , 239 AD2d 926, 927 [4th Dept 1997]; see also Finger v Brande , 306 AD2d 104, 104 [1st Dept 2003]; McGee v Family Care Servs. , 246 AD2d 308, 308 [1st Dept 1998]). | 1 | 1 |
Casey v. Tangreen1 sentence2026This blanket rule had previously been followed by the Fourth Department ( see Andrew v Hurh , 34 AD3d 1331, 1331 [4th Dept 2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 808 [2007]; Rokitka v Barrett , 303 AD2d 983, 984 [4th Dept 2003]; Bonner v Lee , 255 AD2d 1005, 1005 [4th Dept 1998]; Casey v Tan , 255 AD2d 900, 900 [4th Dept 1998]; Stark v Semeran , 244 AD2d 894, 894 [4th Dept 1997], lv dismissed 91 NY2d 956 [1998]; Rook v 60 Key Ctr. , 239 AD2d 926, 927 [4th Dept 1997]; see also Finger v Brande , 306 AD2d 104, 104 [1st Dept 2003]; McGee v Family Care Servs. , 246 AD2d 308, 308 [1st Dept 1998]). | 1 | 1 |
Bonner v. Leegreen1 sentence2026This blanket rule had previously been followed by the Fourth Department ( see Andrew v Hurh , 34 AD3d 1331, 1331 [4th Dept 2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 808 [2007]; Rokitka v Barrett , 303 AD2d 983, 984 [4th Dept 2003]; Bonner v Lee , 255 AD2d 1005, 1005 [4th Dept 1998]; Casey v Tan , 255 AD2d 900, 900 [4th Dept 1998]; Stark v Semeran , 244 AD2d 894, 894 [4th Dept 1997], lv dismissed 91 NY2d 956 [1998]; Rook v 60 Key Ctr. , 239 AD2d 926, 927 [4th Dept 1997]; see also Finger v Brande , 306 AD2d 104, 104 [1st Dept 2003]; McGee v Family Care Servs. , 246 AD2d 308, 308 [1st Dept 1998]). | 1 | 1 |
Rokitka v. Barrettgreen1 sentence2026This blanket rule had previously been followed by the Fourth Department ( see Andrew v Hurh , 34 AD3d 1331, 1331 [4th Dept 2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 808 [2007]; Rokitka v Barrett , 303 AD2d 983, 984 [4th Dept 2003]; Bonner v Lee , 255 AD2d 1005, 1005 [4th Dept 1998]; Casey v Tan , 255 AD2d 900, 900 [4th Dept 1998]; Stark v Semeran , 244 AD2d 894, 894 [4th Dept 1997], lv dismissed 91 NY2d 956 [1998]; Rook v 60 Key Ctr. , 239 AD2d 926, 927 [4th Dept 1997]; see also Finger v Brande , 306 AD2d 104, 104 [1st Dept 2003]; McGee v Family Care Servs. , 246 AD2d 308, 308 [1st Dept 1998]). | 1 | 1 |
Finger v. Brandegreen1 sentence2026This blanket rule had previously been followed by the Fourth Department ( see Andrew v Hurh , 34 AD3d 1331, 1331 [4th Dept 2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 808 [2007]; Rokitka v Barrett , 303 AD2d 983, 984 [4th Dept 2003]; Bonner v Lee , 255 AD2d 1005, 1005 [4th Dept 1998]; Casey v Tan , 255 AD2d 900, 900 [4th Dept 1998]; Stark v Semeran , 244 AD2d 894, 894 [4th Dept 1997], lv dismissed 91 NY2d 956 [1998]; Rook v 60 Key Ctr. , 239 AD2d 926, 927 [4th Dept 1997]; see also Finger v Brande , 306 AD2d 104, 104 [1st Dept 2003]; McGee v Family Care Servs. , 246 AD2d 308, 308 [1st Dept 1998]). | 1 | 1 |
Messina v. Lufthansa German Airlinesgreen2 sentences2026The court, therefore, accords with the view that the 2025 amendments establish a 35-day discovery review "clock" for CoCs predating August 7, 2025, with that date standing as day "zero" ( see General Construction Law § 20; People v Stiles, 70 NY2d 765, 767 [1987] [applying General Construction Law § 20 to CPL 30.30 analysis]; Messina v Lufthansa German Airlines , 47 NY2d 111, 115 [1979] [applying General Construction Law § 20 to the analysis of a contractual obligation]; JPMorgan Chase Bank v Lowell, 309 AD2d 541, 542 [2003] ["applying General Construction Law § 20 to Article 18.02 of the Grou 2026The court, therefore, accords with the view that the 2025 amendments establish a 35-day discovery review "clock" for CoCs predating August 7, 2025, with that date standing as day "zero" ( see General Construction Law § 20; People v Stiles, 70 NY2d 765, 767 [1987] [applying General Construction Law § 20 to CPL 30.30 analysis]; Messina v Lufthansa German Airlines , 47 NY2d 111, 115 [1979] [applying General Construction Law § 20 to the analysis of a contractual obligation]; JPMorgan Chase Bank v Lowell, 309 AD2d 541, 542 [2003] ["applying General Construction Law § 20 to Article 18.02 of the Grou | 1 | 1 |
Garnerville Holding Co. v. Kaye Insurance Associates, Inc.green2 sentences2026The court, therefore, accords with the view that the 2025 amendments establish a 35-day discovery review "clock" for CoCs predating August 7, 2025, with that date standing as day "zero" ( see General Construction Law § 20; People v Stiles, 70 NY2d 765, 767 [1987] [applying General Construction Law § 20 to CPL 30.30 analysis]; Messina v Lufthansa German Airlines , 47 NY2d 111, 115 [1979] [applying General Construction Law § 20 to the analysis of a contractual obligation]; JPMorgan Chase Bank v Lowell, 309 AD2d 541, 542 [2003] ["applying General Construction Law § 20 to Article 18.02 of the Grou 2026The court, therefore, accords with the view that the 2025 amendments establish a 35-day discovery review "clock" for CoCs predating August 7, 2025, with that date standing as day "zero" ( see General Construction Law § 20; People v Stiles, 70 NY2d 765, 767 [1987] [applying General Construction Law § 20 to CPL 30.30 analysis]; Messina v Lufthansa German Airlines , 47 NY2d 111, 115 [1979] [applying General Construction Law § 20 to the analysis of a contractual obligation]; JPMorgan Chase Bank v Lowell, 309 AD2d 541, 542 [2003] ["applying General Construction Law § 20 to Article 18.02 of the Grou | 1 | 1 |
People v. Stilesgreen2 sentences2026The court, therefore, accords with the view that the 2025 amendments establish a 35-day discovery review "clock" for CoCs predating August 7, 2025, with that date standing as day "zero" ( see General Construction Law § 20; People v Stiles, 70 NY2d 765, 767 [1987] [applying General Construction Law § 20 to CPL 30.30 analysis]; Messina v Lufthansa German Airlines , 47 NY2d 111, 115 [1979] [applying General Construction Law § 20 to the analysis of a contractual obligation]; JPMorgan Chase Bank v Lowell, 309 AD2d 541, 542 [2003] ["applying General Construction Law § 20 to Article 18.02 of the Grou 2026The court, therefore, accords with the view that the 2025 amendments establish a 35-day discovery review "clock" for CoCs predating August 7, 2025, with that date standing as day "zero" ( see General Construction Law § 20; People v Stiles, 70 NY2d 765, 767 [1987] [applying General Construction Law § 20 to CPL 30.30 analysis]; Messina v Lufthansa German Airlines , 47 NY2d 111, 115 [1979] [applying General Construction Law § 20 to the analysis of a contractual obligation]; JPMorgan Chase Bank v Lowell, 309 AD2d 541, 542 [2003] ["applying General Construction Law § 20 to Article 18.02 of the Grou | 1 | 1 |
Nicholson v. Scoppettagreen2 sentences2025Mother's appeals presented at least two open questions: (1) whether a Family Court referee has authority in a pre-disposition permanency hearing to order a child's return to their parent; and (2) whether a blanket exception to mootness applies to at least some expired permanency orders in a pending Family Court matter. [FN1] These issues are of statewide importance and implicate a parent's constitutional right to custody of their children ( see Matter of Jamie J. , 30 NY3d 275 [2017]; Nicholson v Scoppetta , 3 NY3d 357, 380 [2004]). 2025Mother's appeals presented at least two open questions: (1) whether a Family Court referee has authority in a pre-disposition permanency hearing to order a child's return to their parent; and (2) whether a blanket exception to mootness applies to at least some expired permanency orders in a pending Family Court matter. [FN1] These issues are of statewide importance and implicate a parent's constitutional right to custody of their children ( see Matter of Jamie J. , 30 NY3d 275 [2017]; Nicholson v Scoppetta , 3 NY3d 357, 380 [2004]). | 1 | 1 |
Lesher v. Hynesgreen2 sentences2025Footnote 3: Indeed, courts may, in some circumstances, uphold a party's blanket claim of attorney-client privilege over a specific subset of documents where an attorney-client relationship has been established, where the court determines that the "withheld documents fall entirely within the scope of the asserted exemption," and where the agency articulates a "particularized and specific justification" for not disclosing the requested documents ( see Gould , 89 NY2d at 275; cf. Matter of Lesher v Hynes , 19 NY3d 57, 66-67 [2012] [permitting, in certain instances, a law enforcement agency to mak 2025Footnote 3: Indeed, courts may, in some circumstances, uphold a party's blanket claim of attorney-client privilege over a specific subset of documents where an attorney-client relationship has been established, where the court determines that the "withheld documents fall entirely within the scope of the asserted exemption," and where the agency articulates a "particularized and specific justification" for not disclosing the requested documents ( see Gould , 89 NY2d at 275; cf. Matter of Lesher v Hynes , 19 NY3d 57, 66-67 [2012] [permitting, in certain instances, a law enforcement agency to mak | 1 | 1 |
| Smith v. . State of New Yorkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Betty L. Kimmel v. State of New Yorkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Burrygreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Portergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Burke v. Bowengreen | 1 | 1 |
| Forman v. Henkingreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Guzmangreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Grand Jury Subpoena. John Doe No. 4 v. John Doe No. 1, Intervenors-Appellantsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Matter of Prall v. New York City Dept. of Correctionsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Knight v. Goldgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Werfel v. Fitzgeraldgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. DiFrancescogreen | 1 | 1 |
| New York City Transit Authority v. New York State Department of Laborgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Chepilkogreen | 1 | 1 |
| White v. City of Sparksgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mastrovincenzo v. City Of New Yorkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| White v. City of Sparksgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Skyview Holdings, LLC v. Cunninghamgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Browngreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Frank v. Maryland
red
2 sentences1978In determining whether a particular inspection is reasonable— and thus in determining whether there is a probable cause to issue a warrant for that inspection — the need for the inspection must be weighed in terms of these reasonable goals of code enforcement.” Quoting with approval the rationale of Frank v Maryland ( 359 US 360, 367-371 ) though otherwise overruled, the court continued (Camara, supra, p 537 ). " 'Time and experience have forcefully taught that the power to inspect dwelling places, either as a matter of systematic area-by-area search or, as here, to treat a specific problem, i 1970The dissent quotes from the decision in Frank v. Maryland (supra, p. 372 ) as follows (pp. 312-313): i < < Time and experience have forcefully taught that the power to inspect dwelling places, either as a matter of systematic area-by-area search or, as here, to treat a specific problem, is of indispensable importance to the maintenance of community health; a power that would be greatly hobbled by the blanket requirement of the safeguards necessary for a search of evidence of criminal acts. | 3 | 1964–1978 |
Goldcrest Realty Co. v. 61 Bronx River Road Owners, Inc.
green
2 sentences2024Owners, Inc. , 83 AD3d 129 [2011], whereas in the rent-stabilized context the Appellate Term in the First Department imposed a blanket rule that a holdover does not lie for mere nonpayment of rent ( see Park Summit Realty Corp. v Frank , 107 Misc 2d 318, 324 [App Term, 1st Dept 1980], affd 84 AD2d 700 [1981], affd on other grounds 56 NY2d 1025 [1982]). 2024Owners, Inc. , 83 AD3d 129 [2011], whereas in the rent-stabilized context the Appellate Term in the First Department imposed a blanket rule that a holdover does not lie for mere nonpayment of rent ( see Park Summit Realty Corp. v Frank , 107 Misc 2d 318, 324 [App Term, 1st Dept 1980], affd 84 AD2d 700 [1981], affd on other grounds 56 NY2d 1025 [1982]). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Solin & Breindel P. C. v. Silverstein Properties, Inc.
green
2 sentences2024Owners, Inc. , 83 AD3d 129 [2011], whereas in the rent-stabilized context the Appellate Term in the First Department imposed a blanket rule that a holdover does not lie for mere nonpayment of rent ( see Park Summit Realty Corp. v Frank , 107 Misc 2d 318, 324 [App Term, 1st Dept 1980], affd 84 AD2d 700 [1981], affd on other grounds 56 NY2d 1025 [1982]). 2024Owners, Inc. , 83 AD3d 129 [2011], whereas in the rent-stabilized context the Appellate Term in the First Department imposed a blanket rule that a holdover does not lie for mere nonpayment of rent ( see Park Summit Realty Corp. v Frank , 107 Misc 2d 318, 324 [App Term, 1st Dept 1980], affd 84 AD2d 700 [1981], affd on other grounds 56 NY2d 1025 [1982]). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Park Summit Realty Corp. v. Frank
green
2 sentences2024Owners, Inc. , 83 AD3d 129 [2011], whereas in the rent-stabilized context the Appellate Term in the First Department imposed a blanket rule that a holdover does not lie for mere nonpayment of rent ( see Park Summit Realty Corp. v Frank , 107 Misc 2d 318, 324 [App Term, 1st Dept 1980], affd 84 AD2d 700 [1981], affd on other grounds 56 NY2d 1025 [1982]). 2024Owners, Inc. , 83 AD3d 129 [2011], whereas in the rent-stabilized context the Appellate Term in the First Department imposed a blanket rule that a holdover does not lie for mere nonpayment of rent ( see Park Summit Realty Corp. v Frank , 107 Misc 2d 318, 324 [App Term, 1st Dept 1980], affd 84 AD2d 700 [1981], affd on other grounds 56 NY2d 1025 [1982]). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Freeman v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc.
green
2 sentences2003On the other hand, decisions favoring a case-by-case application (i.e., the majority view) emphasize that there is nothing so unique about prescription drugs that warrants a blanket exception to liability (see Hill, 884 F2d at 1069), especially where there is a reasonable alternative design (see Freeman, 260 Neb at 566-567, 618 NW2d at 839 ). 2003On the other hand, decisions favoring a case-by-case application (i.e., the majority view) emphasize [*5]that there is nothing so unique about prescription {** 3 Misc 3d at 533 }drugs that warrants a blanket exception to liability ( see Hill , 884 F2d at 1069), especially where there is a reasonable alternative design ( see Freeman , 260 Neb at 566-567, 618 NW2d at 839 ). | 2 | 2003–2003 |
Rodgers v. City of New York
green
2 sentences2026Finally, in discussing whether the City established that it lacked prior written notice of the alleged defect pursuant to Administrative Code § 7-201(c), the plaintiff's brief stated that "[w]hile Rodgers v. City of New York , 34 A.D.3d 555 (2d Dep't 2006), held that a two-year search can be sufficient, that holding is not a blanket rule applicable in all circumstances." However, Rodgers concerned only a motion by an adjacent landowner, and not the City, and did not address the issue of prior written notice or how long a time frame a municipality must search its records in order to establish t 2026Finally, in discussing whether the City established that it lacked prior written notice of the alleged defect pursuant to Administrative Code § 7-201(c), the plaintiff's brief stated that "[w]hile Rodgers v. City of New York , 34 A.D.3d 555 (2d Dep't 2006), held that a two-year search can be sufficient, that holding is not a blanket rule applicable in all circumstances." However, Rodgers concerned only a motion by an adjacent landowner, and not the City, and did not address the issue of prior written notice or how long a time frame a municipality must search its records in order to establish t | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Aveni
green
1 sentence2026As noted, the voluntariness of a defendant's statements must be determined by considering "the totality of the circumstances under which the statement was obtained" ( Aveni , 22 NY3d at 1117 ). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
In re Jamie J.
green
2 sentences2025Mother's appeals presented at least two open questions: (1) whether a Family Court referee has authority in a pre-disposition permanency hearing to order a child's return to their parent; and (2) whether a blanket exception to mootness applies to at least some expired permanency orders in a pending Family Court matter. [FN1] These issues are of statewide importance and implicate a parent's constitutional right to custody of their children ( see Matter of Jamie J. , 30 NY3d 275 [2017]; Nicholson v Scoppetta , 3 NY3d 357, 380 [2004]). 2025Mother's appeals presented at least two open questions: (1) whether a Family Court referee has authority in a pre-disposition permanency hearing to order a child's return to their parent; and (2) whether a blanket exception to mootness applies to at least some expired permanency orders in a pending Family Court matter. [FN1] These issues are of statewide importance and implicate a parent's constitutional right to custody of their children ( see Matter of Jamie J. , 30 NY3d 275 [2017]; Nicholson v Scoppetta , 3 NY3d 357, 380 [2004]). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Mendoza
green
1 sentence2024Lastly, this court is not persuaded to review the late omnibus motion "in the interest of justice, and for good cause shown" ( id. ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Marblegate Asset Management, LLC v. Education Management Finance Corp. green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| In Re the Arbitration Between Johnson City Professional Firefighters Local 921 & Village of Johnson City green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Seatrain Lines, Inc. v. Carcich green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley Ex Rel. Rowley green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Aguilar v. Hicks green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| McCormack v. Kamalian green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Nicholson v. Scoppetta green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Militrano v. Lederle Laboratories green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Alison D. v. Virginia M. green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Matter of Baby Boy C. green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| DiGennaro v. Community Hospital of Glen Cove green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| People v. Jones neutral | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| People v. Gonzalez green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| MTR SCHWARTFIGURE v. Hartnett green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Cordero v. Corbisiero green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| People v. Wright green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Rodriguez v. State of New York neutral | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| People v. Piazza green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| In re the Appointment of a Guardian for Jacqueline F. green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| People v. Novoa green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Savastano v. Nurnberg green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Laureano v. Kuhlmann green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| James Minner v. Dareld Kerby green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Crosland v. New York City Transit Authority green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Stack Electric Inc. v. DiNardi Construction Corp. green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Gelbard v. United States green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| People v. Campbell neutral | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.