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 1978–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jackson v. Shulergreen2 sentences2009“Where issues of credibility are presented, the determinations of a hearing court are accorded great weight on appeal and will not be disturbed if . . . warranted by the record” (Matter of Piernick v Nazinitsky, 48 AD3d 690 , [2008]; see Matter of Barrett v Pickett, 5 AD3d 591, 592 [2004]; Matter of Jackson v Shuler, 292 AD2d 529, 530 [2002]; Matter of Cattell v Cattell, 254 AD2d 357 [1998]). 2008Where issues of credibility are presented, the determinations of a hearing court are accorded great weight on appeal and will not be disturbed if, as here, they are warranted by the record (see Matter of Wilkins v Wilkins, 47 AD3d 823 [2008]; Matter of Jackson v Shuler, 292 AD2d 529, 530 [2002]; Matter of Cattell v Cattell, 254 AD2d 357 [1998]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Martingreen2 sentences2023The determinations of the hearing courts, which actually saw and heard the witness testify, are entitled to deference, and it is not our practice to substitute our own fact-findings for those under review unless the latter are plainly unjustified or clearly erroneous ( see People v Martin , 112 AD3d 453, 454 [2013]). 2023The determinations of the hearing courts, which actually saw and heard the witness testify, are entitled to deference, and it is not our practice to substitute our own fact-findings for those under review unless the latter are plainly unjustified or clearly erroneous ( see People v Martin , 112 AD3d 453, 454 [2013]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Riveragreen1 sentence2017The determinations of a hearing court as to matters of credibility are accorded great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v Rivera, 60 AD3d 788, 789 [2009], mod 15 NY3d 207 [2010]; People v Parker, 306 AD2d 543, 543 [2003]; People v Williams, 303 AD2d 608, 608 [2003]). | 1 | 1 |
Szczerbiak v. Pilatgreen1 sentence2017“A motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 or 4404 for judgment as a matter of law may be granted only ‘where the trial court finds that, upon the evidence presented, there is no rational process by which the fact trier could base a finding in favor of the nonmoving party’ ” (Caliendo v Ellington, 104 AD3d 635 , 636 [2013], quoting Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d 553, 556 [1997]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Boydgreen1 sentence2017Here, the officer’s testimony was neither manifestly untrue nor patently tailored to overcome constitutional objections, and there is no basis in the record upon which to disturb the hearing court’s determination (see People v Page, 137 AD3d 817, 817 [2016]; People v Boyd, 136 AD3d 935, 936 [2016]; People v Cruz, 131 AD3d at 706 ). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Pagegreen1 sentence2017Here, the officer’s testimony was neither manifestly untrue nor patently tailored to overcome constitutional objections, and there is no basis in the record upon which to disturb the hearing court’s determination (see People v Page, 137 AD3d 817, 817 [2016]; People v Boyd, 136 AD3d 935, 936 [2016]; People v Cruz, 131 AD3d at 706 ). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2017The determinations of a hearing court as to matters of credibility are accorded great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v Rivera, 60 AD3d 788, 789 [2009], mod 15 NY3d 207 [2010]; People v Parker, 306 AD2d 543, 543 [2003]; People v Williams, 303 AD2d 608, 608 [2003]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Stephensgreen1 sentence2017The determinations of a hearing court as to matters of credibility are accorded great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v Rivera, 60 AD3d 788, 789 [2009], mod 15 NY3d 207 [2010]; People v Parker, 306 AD2d 543, 543 [2003]; People v Williams, 303 AD2d 608, 608 [2003]). | 1 | 1 |
Barrett v. Pickettgreen1 sentence2009“Where issues of credibility are presented, the determinations of a hearing court are accorded great weight on appeal and will not be disturbed if . . . warranted by the record” (Matter of Piernick v Nazinitsky, 48 AD3d 690 , [2008]; see Matter of Barrett v Pickett, 5 AD3d 591, 592 [2004]; Matter of Jackson v Shuler, 292 AD2d 529, 530 [2002]; Matter of Cattell v Cattell, 254 AD2d 357 [1998]). | 1 | 1 |
Savini v. Burgaletagreen1 sentence2009Moreover, while the appellant claimed that the original child support obligation contained in the judgment of divorce was unfair considering his financial circumstances at that time, as the Support Magistrate correctly noted, the Family Court has no power to review a Supreme Court judgment determining the issue of child support or to determine the issue of child support de novo where the issue already has been determined by the Supreme Court and set forth in a judgment (see Family Ct Act § 466; Matter of Savini v Burgaleta, 34 AD3d 686, 688-689 [2006]). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
City of White Plains v. New York State Board of Real Property Services
neutral
2 sentences2009“Where issues of credibility are presented, the determinations of a hearing court are accorded great weight on appeal and will not be disturbed if . . . warranted by the record” (Matter of Piernick v Nazinitsky, 48 AD3d 690 , [2008]; see Matter of Barrett v Pickett, 5 AD3d 591, 592 [2004]; Matter of Jackson v Shuler, 292 AD2d 529, 530 [2002]; Matter of Cattell v Cattell, 254 AD2d 357 [1998]). 2008Where issues of credibility are presented, the determinations of a hearing court are accorded great weight on appeal and will not be disturbed if, as here, they are warranted by the record (see Matter of Wilkins v Wilkins, 47 AD3d 823 [2008]; Matter of Jackson v Shuler, 292 AD2d 529, 530 [2002]; Matter of Cattell v Cattell, 254 AD2d 357 [1998]). | 2 | 2008–2009 |
People v. Britton
green
2 sentences2023Defendant's contention that the arresting officer's testimony at the reopened suppression hearing was unworthy of belief is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not raise this argument at the suppression hearing ( see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Britton , 113 AD3d 1101, [*2]1102 [2014], lv denied 22 NY3d 1154 [2014]). 2023Defendant's contention that the arresting officer's testimony at the reopened suppression hearing was unworthy of belief is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not raise this argument at the suppression hearing ( see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Britton , 113 AD3d 1101, [*2]1102 [2014], lv denied 22 NY3d 1154 [2014]). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Caliendo v. Ellington
green
1 sentence2017“A motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 or 4404 for judgment as a matter of law may be granted only ‘where the trial court finds that, upon the evidence presented, there is no rational process by which the fact trier could base a finding in favor of the nonmoving party’ ” (Caliendo v Ellington, 104 AD3d 635 , 636 [2013], quoting Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d 553, 556 [1997]). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Cruz
green
1 sentence2017Here, the officer’s testimony was neither manifestly untrue nor patently tailored to overcome constitutional objections, and there is no basis in the record upon which to disturb the hearing court’s determination (see People v Page, 137 AD3d 817, 817 [2016]; People v Boyd, 136 AD3d 935, 936 [2016]; People v Cruz, 131 AD3d at 706 ). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Rivera
green
1 sentence2017The determinations of a hearing court as to matters of credibility are accorded great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v Rivera, 60 AD3d 788, 789 [2009], mod 15 NY3d 207 [2010]; People v Parker, 306 AD2d 543, 543 [2003]; People v Williams, 303 AD2d 608, 608 [2003]). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Piernick v. Nazinitsky
green
1 sentence2009“Where issues of credibility are presented, the determinations of a hearing court are accorded great weight on appeal and will not be disturbed if . . . warranted by the record” (Matter of Piernick v Nazinitsky, 48 AD3d 690 , [2008]; see Matter of Barrett v Pickett, 5 AD3d 591, 592 [2004]; Matter of Jackson v Shuler, 292 AD2d 529, 530 [2002]; Matter of Cattell v Cattell, 254 AD2d 357 [1998]). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Wilkins v. Wilkins
green
1 sentence2008Where issues of credibility are presented, the determinations of a hearing court are accorded great weight on appeal and will not be disturbed if, as here, they are warranted by the record (see Matter of Wilkins v Wilkins, 47 AD3d 823 [2008]; Matter of Jackson v Shuler, 292 AD2d 529, 530 [2002]; Matter of Cattell v Cattell, 254 AD2d 357 [1998]). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Kaplan v. Werlin
green
1 sentence2003Bank v Patel, 267 AD2d 204 [1999]; Evering v Bronx Chrysler Plymouth, 234 AD2d 586 [1996]), and should not be disturbed when supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Wester v State, 247 AD2d 468 [1998]; Evering v Bronx Chrysler Plymouth, supra; Kaplan v Werlin, 215 AD2d 387 [1995]), the determination here must be set aside. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Fischer v. Bright Bay Lincoln Mercury, Inc.
green
2 sentences2003Bank v Patel, 267 AD2d 204 [1999]; Evering v Bronx Chrysler Plymouth, 234 AD2d 586 [1996]), and should not be disturbed when supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Wester v State, 247 AD2d 468 [1998]; Evering v Bronx Chrysler Plymouth, supra; Kaplan v Werlin, 215 AD2d 387 [1995]), the determination here must be set aside. 2003Bank v Patel, 267 AD2d 204 [1999]; Evering v Bronx Chrysler Plymouth, 234 AD2d 586 [1996]), and should not be disturbed when supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Wester v State, 247 AD2d 468 [1998]; Evering v Bronx Chrysler Plymouth, supra; Kaplan v Werlin, 215 AD2d 387 [1995]), the determination here must be set aside. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Wester v. State
neutral
1 sentence2003Bank v Patel, 267 AD2d 204 [1999]; Evering v Bronx Chrysler Plymouth, 234 AD2d 586 [1996]), and should not be disturbed when supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Wester v State, 247 AD2d 468 [1998]; Evering v Bronx Chrysler Plymouth, supra; Kaplan v Werlin, 215 AD2d 387 [1995]), the determination here must be set aside. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Greenpoint Savings Bank v. Patel
neutral
1 sentence2003Bank v Patel, 267 AD2d 204 [1999]; Evering v Bronx Chrysler Plymouth, 234 AD2d 586 [1996]), and should not be disturbed when supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Wester v State, 247 AD2d 468 [1998]; Evering v Bronx Chrysler Plymouth, supra; Kaplan v Werlin, 215 AD2d 387 [1995]), the determination here must be set aside. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
People ex rel. Tigner v. Smith
neutral
1 sentence1996Much weight must be given to the determinations of the hearing court on questions pertaining to the credibility of wit nesses (see, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 , 761; People v Treadwell, 115 AD2d 329 ). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Gagne
green
1 sentence1995As the record supports the determinations by the hearing court, there is no basis to disturb them on appeal (see, People v Gagne, supra). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Heights 75 Owners Corp. v. Thurman
neutral
1 sentence1992A class action for a claim of breach of contract is entirely cognizable (see, e.g., Heights 75 Owners Corp. v Thurman, 134 AD2d 484 ). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Simpson v. Wolansky
green
1 sentence1978In such cases findings of fact must be made by the administra tor "such that the parties may be assured that the decision is based on evidence in the record [and in a form] so as to permit intelligent challenge by a party aggrieved and adequate judicial review [citations omitted].” (Matter of Simpson v Wolansky, 38 NY2d 391, 396 .) The findings that petitioners did not "always” provide adequate "nursing service orientation”, etc. (7kk) or adequate "dietetic service” (7mm) must be vacated since they do not permit intelligent challenge or review. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.