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.
10 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1954–2023 1 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. Braxtongreen2 sentences2015In the absence of a written waiver of the right to appeal “or some indication in the record that defendant understood the distinction between the right to appeal and other trial rights forfeited incident to a guilty plea, there is inadequate assurance that defendant entered into a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver” of the right to appeal (id.; cf. People v Braxton, 129 AD3d 1674, 1675 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 965 [2015]). 2015In the absence of a written waiver of the right to appeal “or some indication in the record that defendant understood the distinction between the right to appeal and other trial rights forfeited incident to a guilty plea, there is inadequate assurance that defendant entered into a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver” of the right to appeal (id.; cf. People v Braxton, 129 AD3d 1674, 1675 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 965 [2015]). | 2 | 3 |
Fane v. Chemung Canal Trust Co.green1 sentence2023Although an "optionee must exercise the option in accordance with its terms within the time and in the manner specified in the option" ( Kaplan v Lippman , 75 NY2d 320, 325 [1990] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Fane v Chemung Canal Trust Co. , 151 AD3d 1526, 1528 [3d Dept 2017]), the relevant case law establishes that the notice provision associated with the option was "solely for plaintiff's benefit as the landlord and may be waived, even in the absence of a written waiver" ( Calkins Corporate Park, LLC v Eye Physicians & Surgeons of W. | 1 | 1 |
Anita Babikian, Inc. v. TMA Realty, LLCgreen1 sentence2023N.Y., P.L.L.C. , 56 AD3d 1122 , 1123-1124 [4th Dept 2008] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Anita Babikian, Inc. v TMA Realty, LLC , 78 AD3d 1088, 1090 [2d Dept 2010]). | 1 | 1 |
Kaplan v. Lippmangreen1 sentence2023Although an "optionee must exercise the option in accordance with its terms within the time and in the manner specified in the option" ( Kaplan v Lippman , 75 NY2d 320, 325 [1990] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Fane v Chemung Canal Trust Co. , 151 AD3d 1526, 1528 [3d Dept 2017]), the relevant case law establishes that the notice provision associated with the option was "solely for plaintiff's benefit as the landlord and may be waived, even in the absence of a written waiver" ( Calkins Corporate Park, LLC v Eye Physicians & Surgeons of W. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Houghgreen1 sentence2020As we are satisfied that defendant's appeal waiver is valid, his challenge to the severity of the agreed-upon sentence, which is limited to the period of postrelease supervision imposed, is precluded ( see generally People v Lawton , 179 AD3d 1383, 1383 [2020]; People v Hough , 179 AD3d 1356, 1357 [2020]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lawtongreen1 sentence2020As we are satisfied that defendant's appeal waiver is valid, his challenge to the severity of the agreed-upon sentence, which is limited to the period of postrelease supervision imposed, is precluded ( see generally People v Lawton , 179 AD3d 1383, 1383 [2020]; People v Hough , 179 AD3d 1356, 1357 [2020]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Sirnogreen1 sentence2010Despite the absence of a written waiver, defendant’s conduct evinced a waiver of his right to remain silent (see People v Sirno, 76 NY2d 967, 968 [1990]; People v Gill, 20 AD3d 434, 434 [2005]; People v Nunez, 176 AD2d 70, 72 [1992], affd 80 NY2d 858 [1992]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2010We previously have pointed out the problem with “the recurrent fusing, during allocution, of the defendant’s right to appeal . . . with those rights waived by a guilty plea in cases where waiving the right to appeal is a condition of the plea bargain” (People v Williams, 59 AD3d 339, 340 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 861 [2009]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Nunezgreen1 sentence2010Despite the absence of a written waiver, defendant’s conduct evinced a waiver of his right to remain silent (see People v Sirno, 76 NY2d 967, 968 [1990]; People v Gill, 20 AD3d 434, 434 [2005]; People v Nunez, 176 AD2d 70, 72 [1992], affd 80 NY2d 858 [1992]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Gillgreen1 sentence2010Despite the absence of a written waiver, defendant’s conduct evinced a waiver of his right to remain silent (see People v Sirno, 76 NY2d 967, 968 [1990]; People v Gill, 20 AD3d 434, 434 [2005]; People v Nunez, 176 AD2d 70, 72 [1992], affd 80 NY2d 858 [1992]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Gausegreen1 sentence2010Moreover, inasmuch as defendant remained in continuous custody, no evidence exists that he was subjected to coercive tactics and the delay between the administration of the Miranda warnings and the questioning was not excessive, County Court properly determined that defendant’s statements were voluntary (see People v Carelli, 41 AD3d 1092, 1093 [2007]; People v Gause, 38 AD3d 999, 1000 [2007], Iv denied 9 NY3d 865 [2007]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Carelligreen1 sentence2010Moreover, inasmuch as defendant remained in continuous custody, no evidence exists that he was subjected to coercive tactics and the delay between the administration of the Miranda warnings and the questioning was not excessive, County Court properly determined that defendant’s statements were voluntary (see People v Carelli, 41 AD3d 1092, 1093 [2007]; People v Gause, 38 AD3d 999, 1000 [2007], Iv denied 9 NY3d 865 [2007]). | 1 | 1 |
Columbia Equities, Ltd. v. Apple Bank for Savingsgreen1 sentence2008That notice provision is solely for plaintiffs benefit as the landlord and may be waived, “even in the absence of a written waiver” (Columbia Equities v Apple Bank for Sav., 176 AD2d 780, 781 [1991]; see United Mut. | 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. Peters
green
1 sentence2020Although defendant did not execute the written appeal waiver that was presented to him during the plea colloquy, neither the absence of a written waiver of the right to appeal nor a defendant's failure to sign such a waiver is fatal where, as here, the oral waiver colloquy is sufficient to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his or her right to appeal ( see People v Thomas , 178 AD3d 1461 , 1461 [2019]; People v Peryea , 169 AD3d 1120 , 1120 [2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 980 [2019]). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Wells
green
1 sentence2010We previously have pointed out the problem with “the recurrent fusing, during allocution, of the defendant’s right to appeal . . . with those rights waived by a guilty plea in cases where waiving the right to appeal is a condition of the plea bargain” (People v Williams, 59 AD3d 339, 340 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 861 [2009]). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
People v. Nunez
green
1 sentence2010Despite the absence of a written waiver, defendant’s conduct evinced a waiver of his right to remain silent (see People v Sirno, 76 NY2d 967, 968 [1990]; People v Gill, 20 AD3d 434, 434 [2005]; People v Nunez, 176 AD2d 70, 72 [1992], affd 80 NY2d 858 [1992]). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
The People v. . Petrea
green
1 sentence1976(See People v Petrea, 30 Hun 98 , 103, affd 92 NY 128 .) The evident purpose of the writing requirement is to ensure that the District Attorney and the court have sufficient time to prepare for hearing to resolve disputed issues of fact and law. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Matter of Spector v. Allen
green
1 sentence1954The command must be clear; disobedience must be willful.” (Matter of Spector v. Allen, 281 N. Y. 251, 260 , supra.) As already noted, with respect to the first three hearings at which appellant testified, he did not in the absence of a written waiver, acquire immunity and he could not be punished for contempt in regard to the testimony he gave at those hearings because the testimony was elicited in violation of his constitutional rights. | 1 | 1954–1954 |
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.