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.
8 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1970–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Nicholas v. Kahngreen1 sentence2004“The cornerstone of administrative law is derived from the principle that the Legislature may declare its will, and after fixing a primary standard, endow administrative agencies with the power to fill in the interstices in the legislative product by prescribing rules and regulations consistent with the enabling legislation” (Matter of Nicholas v Kahn, 47 NY2d 24, 31 [1979]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lediardgreen1 sentence1998While the cross-examination in the present case involved a defense witness rather than the defendant herself, the same rule obtains if the witness’s testimony is material to the defendant’s guilt or innocence (see, People v Torriente, 131 AD2d 793, 793-794 ; see also, People v Lediard, 80 AD2d 237, 242 ). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Poracki v. St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church
green
2 sentences2024The Poracki Court applied the unreasonable risk of harm analysis, as opposed to Espinal , because the case involved a claim between a general contractor's employee and a subcontractor, and involved the question of whether the subcontractor negligently performed its work, thereby creating a condition that caused the plaintiff's injury ( 82 AD3d at 1195-1196 ). 2024The Poracki Court applied the unreasonable risk of harm analysis, as opposed to Espinal , because the case involved a claim between a general contractor's employee and a subcontractor, and involved the question of whether the subcontractor negligently performed its work, thereby creating a condition that caused the plaintiff's injury ( 82 AD3d at 1195-1196 ). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Torriente
green
1 sentence1998While the cross-examination in the present case involved a defense witness rather than the defendant herself, the same rule obtains if the witness’s testimony is material to the defendant’s guilt or innocence (see, People v Torriente, 131 AD2d 793, 793-794 ; see also, People v Lediard, 80 AD2d 237, 242 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Antonio C. Mastrobuono and Diana G. Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., a Corporation, Nick Diminico, Richard F. Benzer and Mark Stevenson
green
1 sentence1995(See, Mastrobuono v Shearson Lehman Hutton, supra, at —, n 4, at 1217, n 4.) | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Schlesinger v. Quinto
green
1 sentence1975We start with Schlesinger v Quinto ( 201 App Div 487 ), and we note that the case involved a violation of a collective bargaining agreement in that the employers therein attempted to change the payment of wages, to the members of the union, from the week-work system to the piece-work system. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Mitchell v. Cohen
green
1 sentence1973The Appellate Division, culling its rationale from the United States Supreme Court’s construction of similar provisions of the Federal Veteran’s Preference Act of 1944 (Mitchell v. Cohen, 333 U. S. 411 ), concluded that while a literal reading of the provisions might bring the temporary reservists within their coverage (as it would these petitioners) such a reading would ignore the obvious intent of the provisions. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Abrams v. S. A. Schwartz Co.
green
1 sentence1970However, in a much more recent case, Abrams v. Schwartz Co. ( 7 Misc 2d 635 ) the case involved a violation of section 35 of the previous rent regulations, in that the elevator of a seven-story building became inoperable, and the owner did not have it replaced. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
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.