71 New York opinions name it 6 courts 1878–2025 5 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. Outleygreen2 sentences2014Defendant’s admitted failure to successfully complete inpatient treatment established a breach of that condition of release and supports the sentencing court’s imposition of the enhanced sentence (see People v Outley, 80 NY2d 702, 712-713 [1993]; People v McDevitt, 97 AD3d 1039, 1040-1041 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 987 [2012]). 2014Defendant’s admitted failure to successfully complete inpatient treatment established a breach of that condition of release and supports the sentencing court’s imposition of the enhanced sentence (see People v Outley, 80 NY2d 702, 712-713 [1993]; People v McDevitt, 97 AD3d 1039, 1040-1041 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 987 [2012]). | 3 | 3 |
People v. McDevittgreen2 sentences2014Defendant’s admitted failure to successfully complete inpatient treatment established a breach of that condition of release and supports the sentencing court’s imposition of the enhanced sentence (see People v Outley, 80 NY2d 702, 712-713 [1993]; People v McDevitt, 97 AD3d 1039, 1040-1041 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 987 [2012]). 2014Defendant’s admitted failure to successfully complete inpatient treatment established a breach of that condition of release and supports the sentencing court’s imposition of the enhanced sentence (see People v Outley, 80 NY2d 702, 712-713 [1993]; People v McDevitt, 97 AD3d 1039, 1040-1041 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 987 [2012]). | 3 | 3 |
People v. Diazgreen2 sentences2014To the extent that defendant’s contention that his admissions to the allegations contained in the violation of probation petition were not voluntary, knowing or intelligent is preserved, the record reflects that defendant’s counseled admissions were freely entered, after advisement of his rights, an opportunity to confer with his counsel and an explicit waiver of his right to a hearing (see People v Diaz, 26 AD3d 644, 645 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 755 [2006]). 2014To the extent that defendant’s contention that his admissions to the allegations contained in the violation of probation petition were not voluntary, knowing or intelligent is preserved, the record reflects that defendant’s counseled admissions were freely entered, after advisement of his rights, an opportunity to confer with his counsel and an explicit waiver of his right to a hearing (see People v Diaz, 26 AD3d 644, 645 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 755 [2006]). | 3 | 3 |
Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinezgreen2 sentences2012Group, Inc. v Oneida Indian Nation, 53 AD3d 1048, 1049 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 709 [2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Santa Clara Pueblo v Martinez, 436 US 49, 58-59 [1978]; Matter of Ransom v St. 2012Group, Inc. v Oneida Indian Nation, 53 AD3d 1048, 1049 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 709 [2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Santa Clara Pueblo v Martinez, 436 US 49, 58-59 [1978]; Matter of Ransom v St. | 3 | 3 |
People v. Velasquezgreen2 sentences2022An explicit waiver of defendant's right to be present occurs [*4]when a defendant either personally or through his counsel makes an affirmative statement on the record to the effect that he is waving such right, that is , that he does not wish to attend the sidebar conference ( see People v Velazquez , 1 NY3d at 47-50 ; People v Keen , 94 NY2d at 538-539 ). 2022An explicit waiver of defendant's right to be present occurs [*4]when a defendant either personally or through his counsel makes an affirmative statement on the record to the effect that he is waving such right, that is , that he does not wish to attend the sidebar conference ( see People v Velazquez , 1 NY3d at 47-50 ; People v Keen , 94 NY2d at 538-539 ). | 2 | 4 |
People v. Carmodygreen2 sentences2012Group, Inc. v Oneida Indian Nation, 53 AD3d 1048, 1049 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 709 [2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Santa Clara Pueblo v Martinez, 436 US 49, 58-59 [1978]; Matter of Ransom v St. 2012Group, Inc. v Oneida Indian Nation, 53 AD3d 1048, 1049 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 709 [2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Santa Clara Pueblo v Martinez, 436 US 49, 58-59 [1978]; Matter of Ransom v St. | 2 | 3 |
People v. Vargasgreen2 sentences2025While it is true that the trial court need not engage the defendant in any particular colloquy to obtain a waiver ( see People v Velasquez , 1 NY3d 44, 49 [2003]), it is also true that such a waiver must be the product of a "voluntary, knowing and intelligent choice" on the defendant's part ( People v Vargas , 88 NY2d 363, 375-376 [1996]). 2014It is hard to imagine how his decision not to attend could have been affected if the court here had used the word “right.” As for the explicit waiver, we have repeatedly held that a lawyer may waive the Antommarchi right of his or her client (People v Velasquez, 1 NY3d 44, 47-50 [2003]; People v Keen, 94 NY2d 533, 538-539 [2000]; see also People v Vargas, 88 NY2d 363, 376 [1996] [because sidebar presence is a statutory, not a constitutional, right, “this Court has been more flexible regarding the acceptable form of voluntary waivers by defendants and their lawyers”]). | 2 | 2 |
Leon v. Martinezgreen2 sentences2015On a CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss, the Court accepts facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accords the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determines whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]). 2015On a CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss, the Court accepts facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accords the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determines whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Keengreen2 sentences2022An explicit waiver of defendant's right to be present occurs [*4]when a defendant either personally or through his counsel makes an affirmative statement on the record to the effect that he is waving such right, that is , that he does not wish to attend the sidebar conference ( see People v Velazquez , 1 NY3d at 47-50 ; People v Keen , 94 NY2d at 538-539 ). 2022An explicit waiver of defendant's right to be present occurs [*4]when a defendant either personally or through his counsel makes an affirmative statement on the record to the effect that he is waving such right, that is , that he does not wish to attend the sidebar conference ( see People v Velazquez , 1 NY3d at 47-50 ; People v Keen , 94 NY2d at 538-539 ). | 1 | 3 |
Matter of Arbitration Between Gleason & Michael Vee, Ltd.green1 sentence2025As the VGM created a new, broader cause of action under New York law that expanded upon the protections offered by the VAWA, it did not merely clarify or reaffirm existing law ( see Matter of Gleason [Michael Vee, Ltd.] , 96 NY2d 117, 122 [2001]). | 1 | 1 |
Nalvarte v. Long Island Universitygreen1 sentence2018Univ. , 153 AD3d 712, 713-714 [2d Dept 2015]). | 1 | 1 |
Cahill v. TRIBOROUGHgreen1 sentence2018Triable issues of fact exist as to whether plaintiff was instructed to demolish the wall from top to bottom, and whether any decision by plaintiff to work from the bottom up, in contravention of an explicit instruction or in contravention of his training or common knowledge, was the sole proximate cause of the accident ( see Cahill v Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Auth. , 4 NY3d 35, 39-40 [2004]; Nalvarte v Long Is. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Jenksgreen1 sentence2011Similarly, inasmuch as defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel pertains to counsel’s representation at a pre-plea suppression hearing and does not impact on the voluntariness of his subsequent plea, it does not survive the waiver of appeal (see People v Gentry, 73 AD3d 1383, 1384 [2010]) and, is, in any event, unpreserved for our review (see People v Jenks, 69 AD3d 1120, 1121 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 841 [2010]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Gentrygreen1 sentence2011Similarly, inasmuch as defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel pertains to counsel’s representation at a pre-plea suppression hearing and does not impact on the voluntariness of his subsequent plea, it does not survive the waiver of appeal (see People v Gentry, 73 AD3d 1383, 1384 [2010]) and, is, in any event, unpreserved for our review (see People v Jenks, 69 AD3d 1120, 1121 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 841 [2010]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Simmonsgreen1 sentence2011Defendant’s claims regarding deficiencies in the grand jury proceedings are precluded from our review by defendant’s knowing, intelligent and voluntary guilty plea, which included an explicit waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Simmons, 27 AD3d 786, 787 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 763 [2006]; People v Robertson, 279 AD2d 711, 712 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 805 [2001]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Robertsongreen1 sentence2011Defendant’s claims regarding deficiencies in the grand jury proceedings are precluded from our review by defendant’s knowing, intelligent and voluntary guilty plea, which included an explicit waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Simmons, 27 AD3d 786, 787 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 763 [2006]; People v Robertson, 279 AD2d 711, 712 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 805 [2001]). | 1 | 1 |
Butterfield v. Board of Trustees of Schenectady County Community Collegegreen1 sentence2010A notice of claim must be served upon the local sponsor, however, if that local sponsor would otherwise be entitled to a notice of claim (see Education Law § 6308 [3], [6]; Butterfield v Board of Trustees of Schenectady County Community Coll., 131 AD2d 963, 964 [1987]). | 1 | 1 |
People ex rel. Gill v. Greenegreen1 sentence2010Gill v Greene, 12 NY3d 1, 6 [2009], cert denied sub nom. | 1 | 1 |
| Clay Dome & Golf Center, LLC v. Board of Assessorsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| 270 Riverside Drive, Inc. v. Braungreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sullivan v. Brevard Associatesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Nelsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Munizgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Ellettgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Prue v. Huntgreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
ELMIRA TEACHERS'ASSN. v. Elmira City School Dist.
green
2 sentences2012Group, Inc. v Oneida Indian Nation, 53 AD3d 1048, 1049 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 709 [2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Santa Clara Pueblo v Martinez, 436 US 49, 58-59 [1978]; Matter of Ransom v St. 2012Group, Inc. v Oneida Indian Nation, 53 AD3d 1048, 1049 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 709 [2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Santa Clara Pueblo v Martinez, 436 US 49, 58-59 [1978]; Matter of Ransom v St. | 3 | 2012–2012 |
People v. Moissett
green
2 sentences2019Indeed, in People v Moissett, we held that the defendant validly waived his right to appeal, -3- -4- Nos. 87, 88, 89 overlooking the fact that “the record [did] not reveal an explicit waiver” ( 76 NY2d at 911 ). 1990Memorandum: Although the record does not reveal an explicit waiver by defendant of his right to appeal, there is ample evidence in the record to conclude that defendant understood that he was waiving that right as part of his plea bargain and that the waiver was voluntary, knowing and intelligent (see, People v Moissett, 76 NY2d 909 ; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 12 ). | 2 | 1990–2019 |
In Re the Arbitration Between Buffalo Police Benevolent Ass'n & City of Buffalo
green
2 sentences2012This is not a situation where the safety of the community is involved (cf. Buffalo Police Benevolent Assn., 4 NY3d at 664 ), and we thus conclude that public policy does not require an explicit waiver. 2012This is not a situation where the safety of the community is involved (cf. Buffalo Police Benevolent Assn., 4 NY3d at 664 ), and we thus conclude that public policy does not require an explicit waiver. | 2 | 2012–2012 |
People v. Seaberg
green
2 sentences1995As a result of this broad and explicit waiver (see, People v Allen, 82 NY2d 761, 763 ), which we also find to have been voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently made (see, People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 11 ), defendant has relinquished his right to appellate review of County Court’s denial of his suppression motion (see, People v Williams, 36 NY2d 829, 830 , cert denied 423 US 873 ; People v Torres, supra, at 417 ; People v Hayes, supra, at 1000 ). 1990Memorandum: Although the record does not reveal an explicit waiver by defendant of his right to appeal, there is ample evidence in the record to conclude that defendant understood that he was waiving that right as part of his plea bargain and that the waiver was voluntary, knowing and intelligent (see, People v Moissett, 76 NY2d 909 ; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 12 ). | 2 | 1990–1995 |
Farag v. Farag
green
1 sentence2024Further, neither translation of the Mahr agreement contains an explicit waiver of equitable distribution, maintenance, or counsel fees ( see Farag v Farag , 4 AD3d 502, 504 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
The People v. Rasaun Sanders
green
1 sentence2019Decades later, in People v Sanders, we upheld an appeal waiver comprised only of three questions posed by the prosecutor, who conducted the entire colloquy without input from the trial court ( 25 NY3d at 339-340 ). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Storozynski v. Storozynski
green
1 sentence2017(Storozynski v Storozynski, 10 AD3d 419 [2d Dept 2004].) To be clear, Mr. D. did not try to amend the contract with regard to the annuity nor did he negotiate his ex-wife’s waiver of her interest in it when the separation agreement was prepared. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Tyrell
green
1 sentence2017The record in this case fails to exhibit that defendant "intelligently and understandingly rejected his constitutional rights," as required, by establishing that defendant either consulted with his attorney or by an explicit waiver of his rights as to each charge pled on the record ( id. ). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
In re the Estate of De Roo
green
1 sentence2012In the absence of an explicit waiver referencing EPTL 5-3.1, the language of the agreement must otherwise clearly indicate an intention to relinquish the right to the exempt property (see Matter of Dito, 218 AD2d 737 [1995]; Matter of De Roo, 148 Misc 2d 856 [1990]). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
In re Dito
green
1 sentence2012In the absence of an explicit waiver referencing EPTL 5-3.1, the language of the agreement must otherwise clearly indicate an intention to relinquish the right to the exempt property (see Matter of Dito, 218 AD2d 737 [1995]; Matter of De Roo, 148 Misc 2d 856 [1990]). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
People v. Healy
green
1 sentence2011Similarly, inasmuch as defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel pertains to counsel’s representation at a pre-plea suppression hearing and does not impact on the voluntariness of his subsequent plea, it does not survive the waiver of appeal (see People v Gentry, 73 AD3d 1383, 1384 [2010]) and, is, in any event, unpreserved for our review (see People v Jenks, 69 AD3d 1120, 1121 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 841 [2010]). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Norton Co. v. Assessor of Watervliet
green
1 sentence2009It is also notable that Avis was decided just one year after 22 NYCRR 678.3 was renumbered and reenacted as the current section 202.59, with the explicit requirement that owner-occupied premises be considered income-producing “as determined by the amount reasonably allocable for rent,” although the petitioner “is not required to make an estimate of rental income.” (Uniform Rules for Trial Courts [22 NYCRR] § 202.59 [b].) White Plains was also cited more recently by the Third Department in Matter of Norton Co. v Assessor of City of Watervliet ( 292 AD2d 672 [3d Dept 2002]). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Ransom v. ST. REGIS FUND green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Hopkins v. New York State Board of Parole green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| MATTER OF CHUBB GROUP OF INS. COS. v. Williams green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Premier Self Storage of Lancaster v. Fusco green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Mayer v. St. Mary's School green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Kern v. City of Rochester green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Pines v. Muss Development Co. green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Reed v. City of New York green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| People v. Hansen green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Four Aces Jewelry Corp. v. Smith green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| People v. Lynch green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| People v. Arroya green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| People v. Alexander neutral | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| People v. Pelchat green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| In re New York County DES Litigation green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| People v. Johnson green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Muniz v. Preferred Associates green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| People v. Poleto neutral | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Furch v. Bucci green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| People v. Mingues green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Roman v. Turner Colours, Inc. green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| People v. Johnson green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| People v. Hidalgo green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| People v. Callahan green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| People v. Prentice green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| People v. Prescott neutral | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| State v. General Electric Co. green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| People v. Dixon green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.