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 1976–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lahey v. Kellygreen2 sentences1991It is well established that in order to annul an administrative determination made after a constitutionally required hearing, a court must be satisfied after reviewing the record as a whole that the record lacks substantial evidence to support the determination (see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 NY2d 135 ; 300 Gramatan Ave. 1991It is well established that in order to annul an administrative determination made after a constitutionally required hearing, a court must be satisfied, after reviewing the record as a whole, that the record lacks substantial evidence to support the determination (see, CPLR 7803 [4]; Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 NY2d 135 ; 300 Gramatan Ave. | 1 | 3 |
People v. Hendersongreen1 sentence2009Particularly given that distinction, we conclude that the presence of the disapproved language in the charge did not misstate the constitutionally required standard of proof or compromise defendant’s right to a fair trial, and that counsel’s failure to object to the challenged portions did not amount to a deprivation of defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel (see People v Alvarez, 54 AD3d 612 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 853 [2008]; People v Henderson, 50 AD3d 525, 525-526 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 959 [2008]). | 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. Alvarez
green
2 sentences2014Since the jury could not have been misled as to the People’s burden, which the court consistently defined as beyond a reasonable doubt, counsel’s failure to object to the challenged portions did not deprive defendant of his right to effective assistance of counsel (see People v Miller, 64 AD3d 471 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 798 [2009]; People v Alvarez, 54 AD3d 612 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 853 [2008]). 2009Particularly given that distinction, we conclude that the presence of the disapproved language in the charge did not misstate the constitutionally required standard of proof or compromise defendant’s right to a fair trial, and that counsel’s failure to object to the challenged portions did not amount to a deprivation of defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel (see People v Alvarez, 54 AD3d 612 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 853 [2008]; People v Henderson, 50 AD3d 525, 525-526 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 959 [2008]). | 3 | 2009–2014 |
People v. Alvarez
neutral
2 sentences2014Since the jury could not have been misled as to the People’s burden, which the court consistently defined as beyond a reasonable doubt, counsel’s failure to object to the challenged portions did not deprive defendant of his right to effective assistance of counsel (see People v Miller, 64 AD3d 471 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 798 [2009]; People v Alvarez, 54 AD3d 612 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 853 [2008]). 2009Particularly given that distinction, we conclude that the presence of the disapproved language in the charge did not misstate the constitutionally required standard of proof or compromise defendant’s right to a fair trial, and that counsel’s failure to object to the challenged portions did not amount to a deprivation of defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel (see People v Alvarez, 54 AD3d 612 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 853 [2008]; People v Henderson, 50 AD3d 525, 525-526 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 959 [2008]). | 3 | 2009–2014 |
People v. Miller
green
2 sentences2014Since the jury could not have been misled as to the People’s burden, which the court consistently defined as beyond a reasonable doubt, counsel’s failure to object to the challenged portions did not deprive defendant of his right to effective assistance of counsel (see People v Miller, 64 AD3d 471 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 798 [2009]; People v Alvarez, 54 AD3d 612 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 853 [2008]). 2014Since the jury could not have been misled as to the People’s burden, which the court consistently defined as beyond a reasonable doubt, counsel’s failure to object to the challenged portions did not deprive defendant of his right to effective assistance of counsel (see People v Miller, 64 AD3d 471 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 798 [2009]; People v Alvarez, 54 AD3d 612 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 853 [2008]). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Miller
neutral
2 sentences2014Since the jury could not have been misled as to the People’s burden, which the court consistently defined as beyond a reasonable doubt, counsel’s failure to object to the challenged portions did not deprive defendant of his right to effective assistance of counsel (see People v Miller, 64 AD3d 471 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 798 [2009]; People v Alvarez, 54 AD3d 612 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 853 [2008]). 2014Since the jury could not have been misled as to the People’s burden, which the court consistently defined as beyond a reasonable doubt, counsel’s failure to object to the challenged portions did not deprive defendant of his right to effective assistance of counsel (see People v Miller, 64 AD3d 471 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 798 [2009]; People v Alvarez, 54 AD3d 612 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 853 [2008]). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
300 Gramatan Avenue Associates v. State Division of Human Rights
green
2 sentences1991Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176 ). 1991Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176 ). | 2 | 1991–1991 |
People ex rel. Vega v. Smith
green
1 sentence1987Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139 ; 300 Gramatan Ave. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Berenhaus v. Ward
green
1 sentence1987It is well established that in order to annul an administrative determination made after a constitutionally required hearing a court must be satisfied, after reviewing the record as a whole, that the record lacks substantial evidence to support the determination (Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436 ; People ex rel. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
In re Ronald H.
neutral
1 sentence1976(See Matter of Daisy H., 40 AD2d 775 ; Matter of Keith G., 36 AD2d 843 ; Matter of Ronald H., 35 AD2d 845 [remanding for retrial under reasonable doubt standard].) . | 1 | 1976–1976 |
In re Keith G.
neutral
1 sentence1976(See Matter of Daisy H., 40 AD2d 775 ; Matter of Keith G., 36 AD2d 843 ; Matter of Ronald H., 35 AD2d 845 [remanding for retrial under reasonable doubt standard].) . | 1 | 1976–1976 |
In re Daisy H.
neutral
1 sentence1976(See Matter of Daisy H., 40 AD2d 775 ; Matter of Keith G., 36 AD2d 843 ; Matter of Ronald H., 35 AD2d 845 [remanding for retrial under reasonable doubt standard].) . | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.