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 4 courts 1889–2026 2 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. Michaelgreen2 sentences2025That head-scratching view of the preservation doctrine inexplicably ignores the doctrine's animating purpose—to "preserve[ ] limited judicial resources" by "allow[ing] the trial court an opportunity to correct any error in the proceedings below at a time when the issue can be dealt with most effectively" ( Delorbe , 35 NY3d at 119 [internal quotation marks omitted]); accord People v Michael , 48 NY2d 1, 6 [1979]; see also People v Jackson , 29 NY3d 18, 22 [2017, Rivera, J.] ["The salutary goal of th[e] well-established preservation requirement is to avoid the need for an appeal"; it is "ground 2025That head-scratching view of the preservation doctrine inexplicably ignores the doctrine's animating purpose—to "preserve[ ] limited judicial resources" by "allow[ing] the trial court an opportunity to correct any error in the proceedings below at a time when the issue can be dealt with most effectively" ( Delorbe , 35 NY3d at 119 [internal quotation marks omitted]); accord People v Michael , 48 NY2d 1, 6 [1979]; see also People v Jackson , 29 NY3d 18, 22 [2017, Rivera, J.] ["The salutary goal of th[e] well-established preservation requirement is to avoid the need for an appeal"; it is "ground | 3 | 3 |
People v. Lopezgreen2 sentences2026It also helps "preserve limited judicial resources and avoid untoward delay in the resolution of criminal proceedings" by giving the trial court "an opportunity to correct any error . . . at a time when the issue can be dealt with most effectively" ( People v Lopez , 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988] [internal quotation marks omitted]). 2026It also helps "preserve limited judicial resources and avoid untoward delay in the resolution of criminal proceedings" by giving the trial court "an opportunity to correct any error . . . at a time when the issue can be dealt with most effectively" ( People v Lopez , 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988] [internal quotation marks omitted]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Nievesgreen2 sentences2026There is, however, " 'a narrow exception to the preservation rule' . . . where a court exceeds its powers and imposes a sentence that is illegal in a respect that is readily discernible from the trial record" ( People v Nieves , 2 NY3d 310, 315 [2004], quoting People v Samms , 95 NY2d 52, 56 [2000]). 2026There is, however, " 'a narrow exception to the preservation rule' . . . where a court exceeds its powers and imposes a sentence that is illegal in a respect that is readily discernible from the trial record" ( People v Nieves , 2 NY3d 310, 315 [2004], quoting People v Samms , 95 NY2d 52, 56 [2000]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Sammsgreen2 sentences2026There is, however, " 'a narrow exception to the preservation rule' . . . where a court exceeds its powers and imposes a sentence that is illegal in a respect that is readily discernible from the trial record" ( People v Nieves , 2 NY3d 310, 315 [2004], quoting People v Samms , 95 NY2d 52, 56 [2000]). 2026There is, however, " 'a narrow exception to the preservation rule' . . . where a court exceeds its powers and imposes a sentence that is illegal in a respect that is readily discernible from the trial record" ( People v Nieves , 2 NY3d 310, 315 [2004], quoting People v Samms , 95 NY2d 52, 56 [2000]). | 1 | 1 |
The People v. Thomas Jacksongreen2 sentences2025That head-scratching view of the preservation doctrine inexplicably ignores the doctrine's animating purpose—to "preserve[ ] limited judicial resources" by "allow[ing] the trial court an opportunity to correct any error in the proceedings below at a time when the issue can be dealt with most effectively" ( Delorbe , 35 NY3d at 119 [internal quotation marks omitted]); accord People v Michael , 48 NY2d 1, 6 [1979]; see also People v Jackson , 29 NY3d 18, 22 [2017, Rivera, J.] ["The salutary goal of th[e] well-established preservation requirement is to avoid the need for an appeal"; it is "ground 2025That head-scratching view of the preservation doctrine inexplicably ignores the doctrine's animating purpose—to "preserve[ ] limited judicial resources" by "allow[ing] the trial court an opportunity to correct any error in the proceedings below at a time when the issue can be dealt with most effectively" ( Delorbe , 35 NY3d at 119 [internal quotation marks omitted]); accord People v Michael , 48 NY2d 1, 6 [1979]; see also People v Jackson , 29 NY3d 18, 22 [2017, Rivera, J.] ["The salutary goal of th[e] well-established preservation requirement is to avoid the need for an appeal"; it is "ground | 1 | 1 |
Barry v. Manglassgreen1 sentence2006(Barry v Manglass, 55 NY2d 803, 805-806 [1981].) In any event, the trial court’s charge on damages was practically a verbatim recitation of New York Pattern Jury Instructions — Civil (PJI3d 2:280 [2004]), and no fundamental error is demonstrated so as to warrant a new trial on this ground. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Hoke
green
2 sentences1985Kersch did not object specifically to that part of the statement and his general protest did not give the court an opportunity to correct any error (People v Hoke, supra). 1985Defense counsel, having heard the charge as given, is in the best position to know whether, in view of all of the evidence, the charge is prejudicial to his client, and "by objection at that point gives the court the opportunity to correct any error.” (People v Hoke, 62 NY2d 1022, 1023 , n.) | 2 | 1985–1985 |
Alvarez v. Goord
green
1 sentence2002In any event, in the absence of any prejudice from the alleged inadequate assistance, the claim had no merit (see, Matter of Alvarez v Goord, 243 AD2d 973 ). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Geddes v. Wilmot
green
1 sentence2002Petitioner’s procedural claim that he was not provided with adequate employee assistance was not preserved by a timely objection at the hearing (see, Matter of Bobet v Coughlin, 231 AD2d 759 ), at a time when the Hearing Officer would have had an opportunity to correct any error (see, Matter of Geddes v Wilmot, 111 AD2d 474 , lv denied 66 NY2d 603 , appeal dismissed 66 NY2d 914 ). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Bobet v. Coughlin
neutral
1 sentence2002Petitioner’s procedural claim that he was not provided with adequate employee assistance was not preserved by a timely objection at the hearing (see, Matter of Bobet v Coughlin, 231 AD2d 759 ), at a time when the Hearing Officer would have had an opportunity to correct any error (see, Matter of Geddes v Wilmot, 111 AD2d 474 , lv denied 66 NY2d 603 , appeal dismissed 66 NY2d 914 ). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
People Ex Rel. Mutual Union Telegraph Co v. Commissioners of Taxes
neutral
1 sentence1889People v. Commissioners, 99 N. Y. 254 , 1 N. E. | 1 | 1889–1889 |
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.