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.
73 New York opinions name it 9 courts 1886–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hearst Corp. v. Clynegreen2 sentences1992None of the issues raised by petitioner are of such a nature that they should be excepted from the mootness doctrine (cf, Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 ). 1986Although there exists an exception to the mootness doctrine where certain factors are present (see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, supra, p 714), we are of the view that the exception is not applicable here since the record establishes neither the likelihood of repetition nor that the case presents a phenomenon typically evading review. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Seaberggreen2 sentences1996Moreover, we have previously held that constitutional rights may explicitly be waived ( see , People v White , 32 N.Y.2d 393, 399 [waiver of right to speedy trial]; People v Epps , 37 N.Y.2d 343, 350 [waiver of right to be present during trial]; People v Allen , 39 N.Y.2d 916, 917 [waiver of right to counsel]; People v Rodriguez , 50 N.Y.2d 553, 557 [waiver of right to speedy trial]; People v Harris , 61 N.Y.2d 9, 17 [waiver of right to constitutional protections]; People v Connor , 63 N.Y.2d 11, 17 [same]; People v Seaberg , 74 N.Y.2d 1, 11 [waiver of right to appeal]; People v Webb , 78 N.Y. 1996Moreover, we have previously held that constitutional rights may explicitly be waived (see, People v White, 32 NY2d 393, 399 [waiver of right to speedy trial]; People v Epps, 37 NY2d 343, 350 [waiver of right to be present during trial]; People v Allen, 39 NY2d 916, 917 [waiver of right to counsel]; People v Rodriguez, 50 NY2d 553, 557 [waiver of right to speedy trial]; People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 17 [waiver of right to constitutional protections]; People v Connor, 63 NY2d 11, 17 [same]; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 11 [waiver of right to appeal]; People v Webb, 78 NY2d 335, 339 [waiver of the | 1 | 1 |
People v. Whitegreen2 sentences1996Moreover, we have previously held that constitutional rights may explicitly be waived ( see , People v White , 32 N.Y.2d 393, 399 [waiver of right to speedy trial]; People v Epps , 37 N.Y.2d 343, 350 [waiver of right to be present during trial]; People v Allen , 39 N.Y.2d 916, 917 [waiver of right to counsel]; People v Rodriguez , 50 N.Y.2d 553, 557 [waiver of right to speedy trial]; People v Harris , 61 N.Y.2d 9, 17 [waiver of right to constitutional protections]; People v Connor , 63 N.Y.2d 11, 17 [same]; People v Seaberg , 74 N.Y.2d 1, 11 [waiver of right to appeal]; People v Webb , 78 N.Y. 1996Moreover, we have previously held that constitutional rights may explicitly be waived (see, People v White, 32 NY2d 393, 399 [waiver of right to speedy trial]; People v Epps, 37 NY2d 343, 350 [waiver of right to be present during trial]; People v Allen, 39 NY2d 916, 917 [waiver of right to counsel]; People v Rodriguez, 50 NY2d 553, 557 [waiver of right to speedy trial]; People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 17 [waiver of right to constitutional protections]; People v Connor, 63 NY2d 11, 17 [same]; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 11 [waiver of right to appeal]; People v Webb, 78 NY2d 335, 339 [waiver of the | 1 | 1 |
People v. Allengreen2 sentences1996Moreover, we have previously held that constitutional rights may explicitly be waived ( see , People v White , 32 N.Y.2d 393, 399 [waiver of right to speedy trial]; People v Epps , 37 N.Y.2d 343, 350 [waiver of right to be present during trial]; People v Allen , 39 N.Y.2d 916, 917 [waiver of right to counsel]; People v Rodriguez , 50 N.Y.2d 553, 557 [waiver of right to speedy trial]; People v Harris , 61 N.Y.2d 9, 17 [waiver of right to constitutional protections]; People v Connor , 63 N.Y.2d 11, 17 [same]; People v Seaberg , 74 N.Y.2d 1, 11 [waiver of right to appeal]; People v Webb , 78 N.Y. 1996Moreover, we have previously held that constitutional rights may explicitly be waived (see, People v White, 32 NY2d 393, 399 [waiver of right to speedy trial]; People v Epps, 37 NY2d 343, 350 [waiver of right to be present during trial]; People v Allen, 39 NY2d 916, 917 [waiver of right to counsel]; People v Rodriguez, 50 NY2d 553, 557 [waiver of right to speedy trial]; People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 17 [waiver of right to constitutional protections]; People v Connor, 63 NY2d 11, 17 [same]; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 11 [waiver of right to appeal]; People v Webb, 78 NY2d 335, 339 [waiver of the | 1 | 1 |
People v. Eppsgreen2 sentences1996Moreover, we have previously held that constitutional rights may explicitly be waived ( see , People v White , 32 N.Y.2d 393, 399 [waiver of right to speedy trial]; People v Epps , 37 N.Y.2d 343, 350 [waiver of right to be present during trial]; People v Allen , 39 N.Y.2d 916, 917 [waiver of right to counsel]; People v Rodriguez , 50 N.Y.2d 553, 557 [waiver of right to speedy trial]; People v Harris , 61 N.Y.2d 9, 17 [waiver of right to constitutional protections]; People v Connor , 63 N.Y.2d 11, 17 [same]; People v Seaberg , 74 N.Y.2d 1, 11 [waiver of right to appeal]; People v Webb , 78 N.Y. 1996Moreover, we have previously held that constitutional rights may explicitly be waived (see, People v White, 32 NY2d 393, 399 [waiver of right to speedy trial]; People v Epps, 37 NY2d 343, 350 [waiver of right to be present during trial]; People v Allen, 39 NY2d 916, 917 [waiver of right to counsel]; People v Rodriguez, 50 NY2d 553, 557 [waiver of right to speedy trial]; People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 17 [waiver of right to constitutional protections]; People v Connor, 63 NY2d 11, 17 [same]; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 11 [waiver of right to appeal]; People v Webb, 78 NY2d 335, 339 [waiver of the | 1 | 1 |
People v. Rodriguezgreen2 sentences1996Moreover, we have previously held that constitutional rights may explicitly be waived ( see , People v White , 32 N.Y.2d 393, 399 [waiver of right to speedy trial]; People v Epps , 37 N.Y.2d 343, 350 [waiver of right to be present during trial]; People v Allen , 39 N.Y.2d 916, 917 [waiver of right to counsel]; People v Rodriguez , 50 N.Y.2d 553, 557 [waiver of right to speedy trial]; People v Harris , 61 N.Y.2d 9, 17 [waiver of right to constitutional protections]; People v Connor , 63 N.Y.2d 11, 17 [same]; People v Seaberg , 74 N.Y.2d 1, 11 [waiver of right to appeal]; People v Webb , 78 N.Y. 1996Moreover, we have previously held that constitutional rights may explicitly be waived (see, People v White, 32 NY2d 393, 399 [waiver of right to speedy trial]; People v Epps, 37 NY2d 343, 350 [waiver of right to be present during trial]; People v Allen, 39 NY2d 916, 917 [waiver of right to counsel]; People v Rodriguez, 50 NY2d 553, 557 [waiver of right to speedy trial]; People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 17 [waiver of right to constitutional protections]; People v Connor, 63 NY2d 11, 17 [same]; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 11 [waiver of right to appeal]; People v Webb, 78 NY2d 335, 339 [waiver of the | 1 | 1 |
People v. Harrisgreen2 sentences1996Moreover, we have previously held that constitutional rights may explicitly be waived ( see , People v White , 32 N.Y.2d 393, 399 [waiver of right to speedy trial]; People v Epps , 37 N.Y.2d 343, 350 [waiver of right to be present during trial]; People v Allen , 39 N.Y.2d 916, 917 [waiver of right to counsel]; People v Rodriguez , 50 N.Y.2d 553, 557 [waiver of right to speedy trial]; People v Harris , 61 N.Y.2d 9, 17 [waiver of right to constitutional protections]; People v Connor , 63 N.Y.2d 11, 17 [same]; People v Seaberg , 74 N.Y.2d 1, 11 [waiver of right to appeal]; People v Webb , 78 N.Y. 1996Moreover, we have previously held that constitutional rights may explicitly be waived (see, People v White, 32 NY2d 393, 399 [waiver of right to speedy trial]; People v Epps, 37 NY2d 343, 350 [waiver of right to be present during trial]; People v Allen, 39 NY2d 916, 917 [waiver of right to counsel]; People v Rodriguez, 50 NY2d 553, 557 [waiver of right to speedy trial]; People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 17 [waiver of right to constitutional protections]; People v Connor, 63 NY2d 11, 17 [same]; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 11 [waiver of right to appeal]; People v Webb, 78 NY2d 335, 339 [waiver of the | 1 | 1 |
People v. Connorgreen2 sentences1996Moreover, we have previously held that constitutional rights may explicitly be waived ( see , People v White , 32 N.Y.2d 393, 399 [waiver of right to speedy trial]; People v Epps , 37 N.Y.2d 343, 350 [waiver of right to be present during trial]; People v Allen , 39 N.Y.2d 916, 917 [waiver of right to counsel]; People v Rodriguez , 50 N.Y.2d 553, 557 [waiver of right to speedy trial]; People v Harris , 61 N.Y.2d 9, 17 [waiver of right to constitutional protections]; People v Connor , 63 N.Y.2d 11, 17 [same]; People v Seaberg , 74 N.Y.2d 1, 11 [waiver of right to appeal]; People v Webb , 78 N.Y. 1996Moreover, we have previously held that constitutional rights may explicitly be waived (see, People v White, 32 NY2d 393, 399 [waiver of right to speedy trial]; People v Epps, 37 NY2d 343, 350 [waiver of right to be present during trial]; People v Allen, 39 NY2d 916, 917 [waiver of right to counsel]; People v Rodriguez, 50 NY2d 553, 557 [waiver of right to speedy trial]; People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 17 [waiver of right to constitutional protections]; People v Connor, 63 NY2d 11, 17 [same]; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 11 [waiver of right to appeal]; People v Webb, 78 NY2d 335, 339 [waiver of the | 1 | 1 |
People v. Webbgreen2 sentences1996Moreover, we have previously held that constitutional rights may explicitly be waived ( see , People v White , 32 N.Y.2d 393, 399 [waiver of right to speedy trial]; People v Epps , 37 N.Y.2d 343, 350 [waiver of right to be present during trial]; People v Allen , 39 N.Y.2d 916, 917 [waiver of right to counsel]; People v Rodriguez , 50 N.Y.2d 553, 557 [waiver of right to speedy trial]; People v Harris , 61 N.Y.2d 9, 17 [waiver of right to constitutional protections]; People v Connor , 63 N.Y.2d 11, 17 [same]; People v Seaberg , 74 N.Y.2d 1, 11 [waiver of right to appeal]; People v Webb , 78 N.Y. 1996Moreover, we have previously held that constitutional rights may explicitly be waived (see, People v White, 32 NY2d 393, 399 [waiver of right to speedy trial]; People v Epps, 37 NY2d 343, 350 [waiver of right to be present during trial]; People v Allen, 39 NY2d 916, 917 [waiver of right to counsel]; People v Rodriguez, 50 NY2d 553, 557 [waiver of right to speedy trial]; People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 17 [waiver of right to constitutional protections]; People v Connor, 63 NY2d 11, 17 [same]; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 11 [waiver of right to appeal]; People v Webb, 78 NY2d 335, 339 [waiver of the | 1 | 1 |
People v. Armergreen1 sentence1994See People v Armer ( 119 AD2d 930, 932 [3d Dept 1986]) where the Court, while denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea, held that a defendant must be permitted to withdraw his plea if the prosecutor failed to disclose exculpatory material and if there is a reasonable probability that defendant would not have pleaded guilty had the material been disclosed. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Thompsongreen1 sentence1994The Court held that "the plea does signal an agreement not to litigate the factual elements of the crime charged” and the materials not disclosed by the prosecution "go to the issue of factual guilt, which, while appropriate for litigation at a trial, are waived by a plea of guilty.” (People v Day, supra, at 600 ; accord, People v Thompson, 174 AD2d 702 [2d Dept 1991].) The Third Department, on the other hand, has expressed the view a claim of a violation of "Brady rights” is not waived by a plea of guilty. | 1 | 1 |
| Himes v. Sullivangreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Picciottigreen | 1 | 1 |
| Schloendorff v. Society of the New York Hospitalred | 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. Crimmins
green
2 sentences2005We further are of the view that the error here is not harmless (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]), because the only evidence of defendant’s implication in the charged crimes was the testimony of the nine-year-old victim. 1992The separate tape recording of that transaction, however, was clearly irrelevant to defendant’s guilt or innocence, but we are of the view that the error in admitting that tape was harmless (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 240-242 ). | 4 | 1980–2005 |
Williams v. Roosevelt Hospital
green
2 sentences1994(Williams v Roosevelt Hosp., 66 NY2d 391, 395-396 ; Koump v Smith, supra, at 293; see also, Dillenbeck v Hess [Bellacosa, J. dissenting], supra.) "Since there is essentially unanimity in the view that the application of the physician-patient privilege is often used as a sword rather than a shield and impairs the ability of the court to administer justice, it is this court’s view that the privilege ought not to be expanded to factual circumstances such as are here presented. 1991(Williams v Roosevelt Hosp., 66 NY2d 391, 395-396 ; Koump v Smith, supra, at 293 ; see also, Dillenbeck v Hess [Bellacosa, J., dissenting], supra.) Since there is essentially unanimity in the view that the application of the physician-patient privilege is often used as a sword rather than a shield and impairs the ability of the court to administer justice, it is this court’s view that the privilege ought not be expanded to factual circumstances such as are here presented. | 2 | 1991–1994 |
People v. Ford
green
1 sentence2014This Court confirmed that view in its unfortunately timed decision in People v Ford ( 86 NY2d 397 [1995]). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Perl v. Meher
green
1 sentence2012As more fully discussed below, the Court of Appeals’ recent decision in Perl v Meher ( 18 NY3d 208 [2011]) does not support the majority’s result because, unlike here, the plaintiffs experts in Perl specifically addressed the defense theory that the MRI demonstrated degenerative etiology. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
People v. MacKenzie
green
1 sentence2010Further, the defendant’s witness at die hearing, a forensic safety engineer, testified that the air freshener hanging from the defendant’s rearview mirror was at dashboard level on a string measuring one-tenth of one inch wide, and would not have obstructed the defendant’s view in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 (30) (see People v MacKenzie, 61 AD3d 703 [2009]). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
People v. Reardon
green
1 sentence2008Furthermore, notwithstanding County Court’s limiting instruction (see CPL 60.35 [2]), we are of the view that the error was not harmless (see People v Russ, 79 NY2d at 177-179 ; People v Jones, 126 AD2d at 974-975 ). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
People v. Russ
green
1 sentence2008Furthermore, notwithstanding County Court’s limiting instruction (see CPL 60.35 [2]), we are of the view that the error was not harmless (see People v Russ, 79 NY2d at 177-179 ; People v Jones, 126 AD2d at 974-975 ). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
People v. Mayo
green
1 sentence2000Unexplained, and uncontradicted, the evidence presented to the Grand Jury establishes a prima facie case and would warrant conviction (People v Mayo, 36 NY2d 1002 , supra; People v Jennings, 69 NY2d 103 , supra). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
People v. Jennings
green
1 sentence2000Unexplained, and uncontradicted, the evidence presented to the Grand Jury establishes a prima facie case and would warrant conviction (People v Mayo, 36 NY2d 1002 , supra; People v Jennings, 69 NY2d 103 , supra). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Peters v. Morse
green
1 sentence1999Assuming, without deciding, that Supreme Court erred in concluding that Carthon, who testified that she was Quandale’s adoptive mother, was a “person interested in the outcome of the event” within the meaning of CPLR 4519, we are of the view that such error was harmless as the testimony sought to be elicited from Carthon was not relevant to plaintiffs malpractice claim (see generally, Peters v Morse, 112 AD2d 559, 560 ). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Newsday, Inc. v. New York State Urban Development Corp.
neutral
1 sentence1998Corp., 181 AD2d 436 [1st Dept 1992] [statistical data contained in an internal audit report prepared by the Urban Development Corporation are disclosable as nonexempt statistical or factual material].) This view and analysis is shared by Mr. Robert J. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Guardian Loan Co. v. Early
green
1 sentence1995Considering Supreme Court’s role in supervising judicial sales and its inherent equitable power over a sale made pursuant to the court’s judgment to ensure that it is not made the instrument of injustice (see, Guardian Loan Co. v Early, 47 NY2d 515, 520 ), we are of the view that the inquiry should focus on the basis for the court’s exercise of its power over judicial sales, not the status of the party who requests that the court exercise its power. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Claim of Arrington v. Schneider
neutral
1 sentence1994As the majority correctly notes, the appropriate inquiry is whether the underlying assault stemmed from work-related differences or from personal animosity (see, Matter of Arrington v Schneider, 75 AD2d 963 ), and it is clear that a compensation award may be sustained as long as there is any nexus between the motiva tion for the underlying assault and the employment (see, Matter of Seymour v Rivera Appliances Corp., 28 NY2d 406, 409 ). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Biagi v. Biagi
green
1 sentence1994R. v Victoria R., 143 AD2d 262, 264 ; Biagi v Biagi, 124 AD2d 770, 771 ), and we direct that such a hearing be conducted forthwith. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Claim of Cuervo v. CAB Motor Co.
green
1 sentence1994Although we agree with the majority that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Workers’ Compensation Board’s finding that decedent’s death occurred in the course of his employment, we are of the view that the presumption afforded by Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 has been rebutted by substantial evidence to the contrary and, therefore, the determination that decedent’s death arose out of his employment must be set aside (see generally, Matter of Cuervo v CAB Motor Co., 133 AD2d 894, 895 ). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Robert C. R. v. Victoria R.
green
1 sentence1994R. v Victoria R., 143 AD2d 262, 264 ; Biagi v Biagi, 124 AD2d 770, 771 ), and we direct that such a hearing be conducted forthwith. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
People v. Day
green
1 sentence1994The Court held that "the plea does signal an agreement not to litigate the factual elements of the crime charged” and the materials not disclosed by the prosecution "go to the issue of factual guilt, which, while appropriate for litigation at a trial, are waived by a plea of guilty.” (People v Day, supra, at 600 ; accord, People v Thompson, 174 AD2d 702 [2d Dept 1991].) The Third Department, on the other hand, has expressed the view a claim of a violation of "Brady rights” is not waived by a plea of guilty. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Claim of Seymour v. Rivera Appliances Corp.
green
1 sentence1994As the majority correctly notes, the appropriate inquiry is whether the underlying assault stemmed from work-related differences or from personal animosity (see, Matter of Arrington v Schneider, 75 AD2d 963 ), and it is clear that a compensation award may be sustained as long as there is any nexus between the motiva tion for the underlying assault and the employment (see, Matter of Seymour v Rivera Appliances Corp., 28 NY2d 406, 409 ). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| People v. Serrano green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Prusack v. State green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Cabral v. State green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
People v. Freeland
green
1 sentence1993In any event, given the fact that problems with the preparation and safeguarding of the chemicals involved here did not become widely known until 1989 as the result of People v Serrano (supra), we are of the view that defense counsel’s motion was timely in the circumstances of this case. * Accordingly, we withhold determination of the remaining issues raised on this appeal and remit the matter to County Court for a hearing to determine whether the subject chemicals were of the "proper kind and mixed in the proper proportions” (People v Freeland, 68 NY2d 699, 700 ) to meet the prerequisite show | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Fogal v. Genesee Hospital green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Schoch v. Dougherty green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| People v. Abair green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| People v. Sullivan neutral | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Alexander v. New York State Board of Parole green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| People v. Major green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Catlin v. Sobol green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Koump v. Smith green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| People v. Gee green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| People v. Howard green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| People v. Jackson green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Star Vacuum Stores, Inc. v. Bisslessi neutral | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Saks & Co. v. Nager neutral | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Van Deloo v. Moreland green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Sherrill v. Grayco Builders, Inc. green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| United States v. Dinitz green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Bland v. Supreme Court neutral | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| La Rocca v. Lane green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.