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 5 courts 1985–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Newman v. Parkergreen2 sentences2022Thus, as the Planning Board was duly constituted and "the quorum requirement was clearly satisfied" for its actions, they were proper ( Matter of Newman v Parker , 174 AD2d 783, 784-785 [1991]). 2022Thus, as the Planning Board was duly constituted and "the quorum requirement was clearly satisfied" for its actions, they were proper ( Matter of Newman v Parker , 174 AD2d 783, 784-785 [1991]). | 2 | 2 |
Rockland Woods, Inc. v. Incorporated Village of Sufferngreen1 sentence2025A quorum to conduct business consists of a majority of the total membership of the Library Board ( see General Construction Law § 41; Rockland Woods, Inc. v Inc. Vil. of Suffern , 40 AD2d 385, 386 [2d Dept. 1973]). | 1 | 1 |
Hervey v. Greene County Board of Electionsgreen1 sentence2018Accordingly, "a duly constituted quorum of the [E]xecutive [C]ommittee was not present when [Mayer] was nominated," and those committee members present had no authority to designate Mayer as the County Independence Party nominee ( Matter of Hervey v Greene County Bd. of Elections , 166 AD2d 743, 745 [1990], lv denied 76 NY2d 710 [1990]; see Election Law § 6-114). | 1 | 1 |
Baker v. Jensengreen1 sentence2018The quorum requirement in the rules leaves no room for interpretation and, contrary to respondents' contention, the fact that some seats on the Executive Committee were unfilled does not affect the requirement's applicability ( see General Construction Law § 41; Matter of Baker v Jensen , 30 AD2d 969, 970 [1968], affd 22 NY2d 959 [1968]). | 1 | 1 |
Town of Smithtown v. Mooregreen1 sentence2005There is no dispute that the quorum requirement of General Construction Law § 41 applies to the State Board in establishing final equalization rates (see Matter of Town of Smithtown v Moore, 11 NY2d 238, 243-244 [1962]). | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Appraisal for Taxation of the Property of Bronsongreen1 sentence1996The quorum requirement of General Construction Law § 41 applies to action taken by the ARB, unless the general object of Public Health Law § 230-c, the context of the language construed or other provisions of law indicate that a different requirement was intended (see, General Construction Law § 110; see also, Matter of Bronson, 150 NY 1, 5 ). | 1 | 1 |
Morris v. Cashmore, Burkegreen1 sentence1985Under these circumstances, it is our view that section 41 of the General Construction Law applies (see Savatgy v City of Kingston, 20 N.Y.2d 258 [1967]; compare Morris v Cashmore, 253 App. Div. 657 [1938], affd 278 N.Y. 730 [1938]). | 1 | 1 |
Morris v. Cashmoregreen1 sentence1985Under these circumstances, it is our view that section 41 of the General Construction Law applies (see Savatgy v City of Kingston, 20 N.Y.2d 258 [1967]; compare Morris v Cashmore, 253 App. Div. 657 [1938], affd 278 N.Y. 730 [1938]). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Baker v. Jensen
neutral
1 sentence2018The quorum requirement in the rules leaves no room for interpretation and, contrary to respondents' contention, the fact that some seats on the Executive Committee were unfilled does not affect the requirement's applicability ( see General Construction Law § 41; Matter of Baker v Jensen , 30 AD2d 969, 970 [1968], affd 22 NY2d 959 [1968]). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Roosevelt Islanders for Responsible Southtown Development v. Roosevelt Island Operating Corp.
green
1 sentence2008Instructive in this connection is Roosevelt Islanders for Responsible Southtown Dev. v. Roosevelt Island Operating Corp. , 291 A.D.2d 40 (1 st Dep't 2001) (hereinafter referred to as "Roosevelt Islanders") . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
People v. Herrmans
green
2 sentences1988Even if they may be barred from participating in deliberations or voting, [2] the nondeliberating members of the quorum may well contribute to the Grand Jury's traditional function of furnishing protection against malicious and unfounded prosecution, or being alert to "fraud and improper practices" in the Grand Jury ( see , People v Herrmans , 69 Misc 303, 308 ). 1988Even if they may be barred from participating in deliberations or voting, 2 the nondeliberating members of the quorum may well contribute to the Grand Jury’s traditional function of furnishing protection against malicious and unfounded prosecution, or being alert to "fraud and improper practices” in the Grand Jury (see, People v Herrmans, 69 Misc 303 ,. 308). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
People v. Brinkman
green
2 sentences1988Section 224 provided that the "grand jury must consist of not less than sixteen and not more than twenty-three persons, and the presence of at least sixteen is necessary for the transaction of any business." Section 268 separately specified that an "indictment cannot be found without the concurrence of at least twelve grand jurors." In People v Brinkman ( 309 N.Y. 974 , supra ) this court affirmed the Appellate Division's reinstatement of an indictment that had been dismissed on the ground that fewer than 12 of the 16 jurors who voted the indictment had heard certain evidence. 1988Section 224 provided that the "grand jury must consist of not less than sixteen and not more than twenty-three persons, and the presence of at least sixteen is necessary for the transaction of any business.” Section 268 separately specified that an "indictment cannot be found without the concurrence of at least twelve grand jurors.” In People v Brinkman ( 309 NY 974 , supra) this court affirmed the Appellate Division’s reinstatement of an indictment that had been dismissed on the ground that fewer than 12 of the 16 jurors who voted the indictment had heard certain evidence. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Orange County Publications v. Council of the City of Newburgh
green
1 sentence1986(Orange County Pub. v Council of City of Newburgh, supra; Matter of Tri-Village Publishers v St. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Savatgy v. City of Kingston
green
1 sentence1985Under these circumstances, it is our view that section 41 of the General Construction Law applies (see Savatgy v City of Kingston, 20 N.Y.2d 258 [1967]; compare Morris v Cashmore, 253 App. Div. 657 [1938], affd 278 N.Y. 730 [1938]). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.