10 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Green v. Tierneygreen2 sentences2014Because the record does not indicate that Family Court gave the father or his counsel an opportunity to correct the error through the simple addition of a signature, the court should not have dismissed the objections on this ground (see Matter of Dakota SS. [Jessica SS.], 68 AD3d 1462, 1462 [2009]; Matter of Green v Tierney, 59 AD3d 900, 901 [2009]). 2014Because the record does not indicate that Family Court gave the father or his counsel an opportunity to correct the error through the simple addition of a signature, the court should not have dismissed the objections on this ground (see Matter of Dakota SS. [Jessica SS.], 68 AD3d 1462, 1462 [2009]; Matter of Green v Tierney, 59 AD3d 900, 901 [2009]). | 2 | 2 |
Jessica SS. v. Patricia SS.green2 sentences2014Because the record does not indicate that Family Court gave the father or his counsel an opportunity to correct the error through the simple addition of a signature, the court should not have dismissed the objections on this ground (see Matter of Dakota SS. [Jessica SS.], 68 AD3d 1462, 1462 [2009]; Matter of Green v Tierney, 59 AD3d 900, 901 [2009]). 2014Because the record does not indicate that Family Court gave the father or his counsel an opportunity to correct the error through the simple addition of a signature, the court should not have dismissed the objections on this ground (see Matter of Dakota SS. [Jessica SS.], 68 AD3d 1462, 1462 [2009]; Matter of Green v Tierney, 59 AD3d 900, 901 [2009]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Whalengreen2 sentences2010However, an objection raised after the initial charge is given will be considered timely provided that it is raised prior to the verdict and at a time which affords the court an opportunity to correct its error (see People v Albert, 85 NY2d 851, 853 [1995]; People v Khan, 68 NY2d 921, 922 [1986] ; People v Whalen, 59 NY2d 273, 280 [1983]). 1985Consequently, any objection must be deemed waived (People v Whalen, 59 NY2d 273, 279-280 ; People v McLaughlin, 104 AD2d 829 ). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Hallgreen1 sentence2018People v Hall , 78 AD3d 1328, 1329 [2010]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Rossgreen1 sentence2018Defendant failed to preserve this claim with a timely objection, and thus the court did not have an opportunity to correct this error ( see People v Ross , 34 AD3d 1124, 1125 [2006], lvs denied 8 NY3d 879 , 884 [2007]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Ojedagreen1 sentence2017In addition to objecting to specific questions, counsel unequivocally asserted that the court’s extensive questioning of witnesses was intrusive and prejudicial, thus providing an opportunity to correct the error (see CPL 470.05 [2]; cf. People v Charleston, 56 NY2d at 887-888 ; People v Ojeda, 118 AD3d 919, 919 [2014]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Albertgreen1 sentence2010However, an objection raised after the initial charge is given will be considered timely provided that it is raised prior to the verdict and at a time which affords the court an opportunity to correct its error (see People v Albert, 85 NY2d 851, 853 [1995]; People v Khan, 68 NY2d 921, 922 [1986] ; People v Whalen, 59 NY2d 273, 280 [1983]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Khangreen1 sentence2010However, an objection raised after the initial charge is given will be considered timely provided that it is raised prior to the verdict and at a time which affords the court an opportunity to correct its error (see People v Albert, 85 NY2d 851, 853 [1995]; People v Khan, 68 NY2d 921, 922 [1986] ; People v Whalen, 59 NY2d 273, 280 [1983]). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Delaney v. Philhern Realty Holding Corp.
green
2 sentences1985Its function ‘is to give the court and the opposing party the opportunity to correct an error in the conduct of the trial’ (Delaney v Philhern Realty Holding Corp., 280 NY 461 , 467 * * *)” (Barry v Manglass, 55 NY2d 803, 805-806 ). 1981Its function “is to give the court and the opposing party the opportunity to correct an error in the conduct of the trial” (Delaney v Philhern Realty Holding Corp., 280 NY 461, 467 ; see 4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 4017.06). | 2 | 1981–1985 |
People v. Charleston
green
1 sentence2017In addition to objecting to specific questions, counsel unequivocally asserted that the court’s extensive questioning of witnesses was intrusive and prejudicial, thus providing an opportunity to correct the error (see CPL 470.05 [2]; cf. People v Charleston, 56 NY2d at 887-888 ; People v Ojeda, 118 AD3d 919, 919 [2014]). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Rashbaum v. Ambach
green
1 sentence1986Consequently, any objection must be deemed waived” (People v Wolcott, 111 AD2d 513, 515 ). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
People v. McLaughlin
neutral
1 sentence1985Consequently, any objection must be deemed waived (People v Whalen, 59 NY2d 273, 279-280 ; People v McLaughlin, 104 AD2d 829 ). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Barry v. Manglass
green
1 sentence1985Its function ‘is to give the court and the opposing party the opportunity to correct an error in the conduct of the trial’ (Delaney v Philhern Realty Holding Corp., 280 NY 461 , 467 * * *)” (Barry v Manglass, 55 NY2d 803, 805-806 ). | 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.