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.
9 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1897–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Parkwood Realty Co. v. Marcanogreen2 sentences1989That there exists a mitigation doctrine in the guise of "good faith” was cited in Parkwood Realty Co. v Marcano (supra, at 692), the court there electing to proceed in a more direct fashion, recognizing the inherent fairness, in terms of contract law, of the rule which imposes a duty to mitigate damages. 1984In holding that there was such a mitigation requirement, the court in Paragon Inds. v Williams ( 122 Misc 2d 628, 629-630 [App Term, 2d Dept]) noted: “As the Court of Appeals * * * long ago noted, the rule that a landlord may sit idly by and collect his rents while making no attempt to relet the premises often imposes harsh results * * * Indeed, both courts and commentators have recognized that the contrary rule is more just (see Parkwood Realty Co. v Marcano [ 77 Misc 2d 690 ], 692; Ann., 21 ALR3d 534, 540).” This holding placed New York in step with the view accepted in many other States tha | 1 | 2 |
Sumner v. Shumangreen1 sentence2003Discussion In his sentencing memorandum defendant claimed CPL 400.27 violates his right to be free “from cruel and unusual punishment and [is] in violation of [his] right to Due Process” as it permits a trial court to proceed directly to sentencing without a mitigation hearing. 2 Notwithstanding defendant’s reference to the Eighth Amendment, the pertinent focus of his challenge is the due process guarantees of the State and Federal Constitutions. 3 In Harmelin v Michigan ( 501 US 957 [1991]), petitioner requested the Court to extend the “so-called ‘individualized capital-sentencing doctrine,’ | 1 | 1 |
Paragon Industries, Inc. v. Williamsgreen1 sentence1984In holding that there was such a mitigation requirement, the court in Paragon Inds. v Williams ( 122 Misc 2d 628, 629-630 [App Term, 2d Dept]) noted: “As the Court of Appeals * * * long ago noted, the rule that a landlord may sit idly by and collect his rents while making no attempt to relet the premises often imposes harsh results * * * Indeed, both courts and commentators have recognized that the contrary rule is more just (see Parkwood Realty Co. v Marcano [ 77 Misc 2d 690 ], 692; Ann., 21 ALR3d 534, 540).” This holding placed New York in step with the view accepted in many other States tha | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Callisto Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Picker
green
1 sentence2018Defendant failed to oppose that part of plaintiff's motion; hence, we decline [*2]to review the arguments defendant makes about mitigation on appeal ( see Callisto Pharm., Inc. v Picker , 74 AD3d 545 [1st Dept 2010]; Lally v New York City Health & Hosps. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Doleo
green
1 sentence2004Since the sentencing court failed to make a finding of mitigating circumstances on the record, we remand for such action as the court, in its discretion, may choose to exercise in compliance with the statute (see People v Doleo, 110 AD2d 524 [1985], lv denied 65 NY2d 979 [1985]). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Harmelin v. Michigan
green
2 sentences2003Discussion In his sentencing memorandum defendant claimed CPL 400.27 violates his right to be free “from cruel and unusual punishment and [is] in violation of [his] right to Due Process” as it permits a trial court to proceed directly to sentencing without a mitigation hearing. 2 Notwithstanding defendant’s reference to the Eighth Amendment, the pertinent focus of his challenge is the due process guarantees of the State and Federal Constitutions. 3 In Harmelin v Michigan ( 501 US 957 [1991]), petitioner requested the Court to extend the “so-called ‘individualized capital-sentencing doctrine,’ 2003The Court noted that its Eighth Amendment jurisprudence which created and clarified the procedural necessity of individualized *345 capital sentencing had repeatedly rejected a comparable procedural requirement outside the capital context, “because of the qualitative difference between death and all other penalties” (Harmelin, 501 US at 995 ). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
People v. McCloud
green
1 sentence2001We are also equally satisfied that the decision to revoke probation satisfied the requirements of due process, as due process does not require a court to consider alternatives to incarceration before revoking probation (see, Black v Romano, 471 US 606, 611 , supra) or hold a separate mitigation hearing (see, People v McCloud, 205 AD2d 1024 , lv denied 86 NY2d 738 ). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Black v. Romano
green
1 sentence2001We are also equally satisfied that the decision to revoke probation satisfied the requirements of due process, as due process does not require a court to consider alternatives to incarceration before revoking probation (see, Black v Romano, 471 US 606, 611 , supra) or hold a separate mitigation hearing (see, People v McCloud, 205 AD2d 1024 , lv denied 86 NY2d 738 ). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
In re Levin
neutral
1 sentence1999Instead, we suspended him pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (e) (1) pending the mitigation hearing (see, 222 AD2d 72 ). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
In re Levine
neutral
1 sentence1996Inasmuch as the offense constituted a "serious crime” (Judiciary Law § 90 [4] [d]), this Court suspended respondent from the practice of law on February 9, 1995, pending a mitigation hearing and final disciplinary action ( 208 AD2d 156 ). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Syndicate Building Corp. v. Lorber
green
1 sentence1989Corp. v Lorber, supra; Howard Stores Corp. v Robison Rayon Co., supra). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Wallis v. Falken-Smith
neutral
1 sentence1989The Appellate Division, First Department, declined to decide whether the duty existed in Wallis ( 136 AD2d 506 , supra), although, nine months earlier, that same court cited the applicability of the mitigation doctrine to residential landlords in Syndicate Bldg. (supra). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Marvin v. . Brooks
green
1 sentence1897(Marvin v. Brooks, 94 N. Y. 71 .) He is bound to keep clear and accurate accounts, and if he does not. the presumptions are all against him, obscurities and doubts being resolved adversely to him. (2 Perry on Trusts, § 821.) We find no equitable considerations present in this case which call in any respect for a mitigation of this rule. | 1 | 1897–1897 |
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.