8 New York opinions name it 1 courts 1975–2021 1 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. Gallaghergreen2 sentences2019Contrary to the defendant's contention, the delay in holding a hearing to determine his risk level pursuant to SORA was not so " outrageously arbitrary'" as to constitute a gross abuse of governmental authority ( People v Sprinkler , 162 AD3d 802 , 802, quoting People v Gonzalez , 138 AD3d 814, 815 ; see People v Gallagher , 129 AD3d 1252, 1253 ; People v Wilkes , 53 AD3d 1073, 1074 ; cf. People v Gregory , 71 AD3d 1559, 1560 ). 2019Contrary to the defendant's contention, the delay in holding a hearing to determine his risk level pursuant to SORA was not so "outrageously arbitrary" as to constitute "a gross abuse of governmental authority" ( People v Sprinkler , 162 AD3d 802 , 802; People v Gonzalez , 138 AD3d 814, 815 ; see People v Gallagher , 129 AD3d 1252, 1253 ; People v Meyers , 16 Misc 3d 115, 117-118 [App Term, 2d Dept]; cf. People v Gregory , 71 AD3d 1559, 1560 ). | 4 | 4 |
People v. Meyersgreen2 sentences2019Contrary to the defendant's contention, the delay in holding a hearing to determine his risk level pursuant to SORA was not so "outrageously arbitrary" as to constitute "a gross abuse of governmental authority" ( People v Sprinkler , 162 AD3d 802 , 802; People v Gonzalez , 138 AD3d 814, 815 ; see People v Gallagher , 129 AD3d 1252, 1253 ; People v Meyers , 16 Misc 3d 115, 117-118 [App Term, 2d Dept]; cf. People v Gregory , 71 AD3d 1559, 1560 ). 2016Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the delay in holding the hearing to determine his risk level pursuant to SORA was not so outrageously arbitrary as to constitute a gross abuse of governmental authority (see People v Gallagher, 129 AD3d 1252, 1253 [2015]; People v Martin, 119 AD3d 1385 [2014]; People v Wilkes, 53 AD3d 1073, 1074 [2008]; People v Meyers, 16 Misc 3d 115, 117-118 [App Term, 2d Dept 2007]; cf. People v Gregory, 71 AD3d 1559, 1560 [2010]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Gregorygreen2 sentences2019Contrary to the defendant's contention, the delay in holding a hearing to determine his risk level pursuant to SORA was not so " outrageously arbitrary'" as to constitute a gross abuse of governmental authority ( People v Sprinkler , 162 AD3d 802 , 802, quoting People v Gonzalez , 138 AD3d 814, 815 ; see People v Gallagher , 129 AD3d 1252, 1253 ; People v Wilkes , 53 AD3d 1073, 1074 ; cf. People v Gregory , 71 AD3d 1559, 1560 ). 2019Contrary to the defendant's contention, the delay in holding a hearing to determine his risk level pursuant to SORA was not so "outrageously arbitrary" as to constitute "a gross abuse of governmental authority" ( People v Sprinkler , 162 AD3d 802 , 802; People v Gonzalez , 138 AD3d 814, 815 ; see People v Gallagher , 129 AD3d 1252, 1253 ; People v Meyers , 16 Misc 3d 115, 117-118 [App Term, 2d Dept]; cf. People v Gregory , 71 AD3d 1559, 1560 ). | 1 | 4 |
People v. Wilkesgreen2 sentences2019Contrary to the defendant's contention, the delay in holding a hearing to determine his risk level pursuant to SORA was not so " outrageously arbitrary'" as to constitute a gross abuse of governmental authority ( People v Sprinkler , 162 AD3d 802 , 802, quoting People v Gonzalez , 138 AD3d 814, 815 ; see People v Gallagher , 129 AD3d 1252, 1253 ; People v Wilkes , 53 AD3d 1073, 1074 ; cf. People v Gregory , 71 AD3d 1559, 1560 ). 2018Contrary to the defendant's contention, the delay in holding a hearing to determine his risk level pursuant to SORA was not so "outrageously arbitrary" as to constitute a gross abuse of governmental authority ( People v Gonzalez , 138 AD3d 814, 815 ; see People v Gallagher , 129 AD3d 1252, 1253 ; People v Wilkes , 53 AD3d 1073, 1074 ; cf. People v Gregory , 71 AD3d 1559, 1560 ). "[U]tilization of the risk assessment instrument will generally result in the proper classification in most cases so that departures will be the exception not the rule'" ( People v Guaman , 8 AD3d 545 , 545, quoting SO | 1 | 3 |
Matter of State of New York v. Keith F.green1 sentence2021We reject petitioner's contention that his due process rights were violated by a delay in holding a hearing in this case ( see Matter of Wayne J. v State of New York , 184 AD3d 1133 , 1134 [4th Dept 2020]; Matter of State of New York v Kerry K. , 157 AD3d 172 , 181-182 [2d Dept 2017]; Matter of State of New York v Keith F. , 149 AD3d 671, 672-673 [1st Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 917 [2017], appeal dismissed 30 NY3d 1032 [2017]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Wyattgreen1 sentence2018The general rule is that a SORA court has the discretion to depart from the presumptive risk level only if " special circumstances'" warrant such departure ( People v Wyatt , 89 AD3d 112, 119 [emphasis omitted], quoting Guidelines at 4; see People v Mitchell , 142 AD3d 542, 544 ). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Mitchellgreen1 sentence2018The general rule is that a SORA court has the discretion to depart from the presumptive risk level only if " special circumstances'" warrant such departure ( People v Wyatt , 89 AD3d 112, 119 [emphasis omitted], quoting Guidelines at 4; see People v Mitchell , 142 AD3d 542, 544 ). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Boydgreen1 sentence2018Contrary to the defendant's contention, the delay in holding a hearing to determine his risk level pursuant to SORA was not so "outrageously arbitrary" as to constitute a gross abuse of governmental authority ( People v Gonzalez , 138 AD3d 814, 815 ; see People v Gallagher , 129 AD3d 1252, 1253 ; People v Wilkes , 53 AD3d 1073, 1074 ; cf. People v Gregory , 71 AD3d 1559, 1560 ). "[U]tilization of the risk assessment instrument will generally result in the proper classification in most cases so that departures will be the exception not the rule'" ( People v Guaman , 8 AD3d 545 , 545, quoting SO | 1 | 1 |
State ex rel. Karur v. Carmichaelgreen1 sentence2009Karur v Carmichael, 41 AD3d 349, 349-350 [2007] [First Department reversed an order that granted the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and directed the immediate release of the petitioner from a psychiatric facility despite the fact that the petitioner was held without legal authority under article 9]; People ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
Giffone v. DeBuonogreen1 sentence2002Petitioner’s remaining claims raised under the rubric of denial of due process are unavailing, including those alleging bias and those directed at the delay in holding a hearing in California and in issuing charges in this state for which no actual prejudice is demonstrated or apparent (see, Matter of Moss v Chassin, 209 AD2d 889, 889-890 , lv denied 85 NY2d 805 , cert denied 516 US 861 ; see also, Matter of Giffone v DeBuono, 263 AD2d 713, 714-715 ). | 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. Baker
green
2 sentences2019Contrary to the defendant's contention, the delay in holding a hearing to determine his risk level pursuant to SORA was not so " outrageously arbitrary'" as to constitute a gross abuse of governmental authority ( People v Sprinkler , 162 AD3d 802 , 802, quoting People v Gonzalez , 138 AD3d 814, 815 ; see People v Gallagher , 129 AD3d 1252, 1253 ; People v Wilkes , 53 AD3d 1073, 1074 ; cf. People v Gregory , 71 AD3d 1559, 1560 ). 2019Contrary to the defendant's contention, the delay in holding a hearing to determine his risk level pursuant to SORA was not so "outrageously arbitrary" as to constitute "a gross abuse of governmental authority" ( People v Sprinkler , 162 AD3d 802 , 802; People v Gonzalez , 138 AD3d 814, 815 ; see People v Gallagher , 129 AD3d 1252, 1253 ; People v Meyers , 16 Misc 3d 115, 117-118 [App Term, 2d Dept]; cf. People v Gregory , 71 AD3d 1559, 1560 ). | 3 | 2018–2019 |
People ex rel. Crawford v. Warden of Vernon C. Bain Ctr.
green
1 sentence2021We reject petitioner's contention that his due process rights were violated by a delay in holding a hearing in this case ( see Matter of Wayne J. v State of New York , 184 AD3d 1133 , 1134 [4th Dept 2020]; Matter of State of New York v Kerry K. , 157 AD3d 172 , 181-182 [2d Dept 2017]; Matter of State of New York v Keith F. , 149 AD3d 671, 672-673 [1st Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 917 [2017], appeal dismissed 30 NY3d 1032 [2017]). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Robert S. v. Linda S.
neutral
1 sentence2021We reject petitioner's contention that his due process rights were violated by a delay in holding a hearing in this case ( see Matter of Wayne J. v State of New York , 184 AD3d 1133 , 1134 [4th Dept 2020]; Matter of State of New York v Kerry K. , 157 AD3d 172 , 181-182 [2d Dept 2017]; Matter of State of New York v Keith F. , 149 AD3d 671, 672-673 [1st Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 917 [2017], appeal dismissed 30 NY3d 1032 [2017]). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Guaman
green
1 sentence2018Contrary to the defendant's contention, the delay in holding a hearing to determine his risk level pursuant to SORA was not so "outrageously arbitrary" as to constitute a gross abuse of governmental authority ( People v Gonzalez , 138 AD3d 814, 815 ; see People v Gallagher , 129 AD3d 1252, 1253 ; People v Wilkes , 53 AD3d 1073, 1074 ; cf. People v Gregory , 71 AD3d 1559, 1560 ). "[U]tilization of the risk assessment instrument will generally result in the proper classification in most cases so that departures will be the exception not the rule'" ( People v Guaman , 8 AD3d 545 , 545, quoting SO | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Scott
green
1 sentence2016Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the delay in holding the hearing to determine his risk level pursuant to SORA was not so outrageously arbitrary as to constitute a gross abuse of governmental authority (see People v Gallagher, 129 AD3d 1252, 1253 [2015]; People v Martin, 119 AD3d 1385 [2014]; People v Wilkes, 53 AD3d 1073, 1074 [2008]; People v Meyers, 16 Misc 3d 115, 117-118 [App Term, 2d Dept 2007]; cf. People v Gregory, 71 AD3d 1559, 1560 [2010]). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State Ex Rel. Harkavy v. Consilvio
green
1 sentence2009Even assuming, arguendo, that the delay in holding a hearing under article 9 was entirely attributable to petitioner and that respondent’s detention was thereby prolonged, we conclude that the proper remedy is not dismissal of the petition and respondent’s release but, rather, the proper remedy is an expeditious hearing (see Harkavy II, 8 NY3d at 652 ; Harkavy I, 7 NY3d at 614 ; see also State of N.Y. ex rel. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State Ex Rel. Harkavy v. Consilvio
green
1 sentence2009Even assuming, arguendo, that the delay in holding a hearing under article 9 was entirely attributable to petitioner and that respondent’s detention was thereby prolonged, we conclude that the proper remedy is not dismissal of the petition and respondent’s release but, rather, the proper remedy is an expeditious hearing (see Harkavy II, 8 NY3d at 652 ; Harkavy I, 7 NY3d at 614 ; see also State of N.Y. ex rel. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Bui v. Massachusetts
green
1 sentence2002Petitioner’s remaining claims raised under the rubric of denial of due process are unavailing, including those alleging bias and those directed at the delay in holding a hearing in California and in issuing charges in this state for which no actual prejudice is demonstrated or apparent (see, Matter of Moss v Chassin, 209 AD2d 889, 889-890 , lv denied 85 NY2d 805 , cert denied 516 US 861 ; see also, Matter of Giffone v DeBuono, 263 AD2d 713, 714-715 ). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Moss v. Chassin
green
1 sentence2002Petitioner’s remaining claims raised under the rubric of denial of due process are unavailing, including those alleging bias and those directed at the delay in holding a hearing in California and in issuing charges in this state for which no actual prejudice is demonstrated or apparent (see, Matter of Moss v Chassin, 209 AD2d 889, 889-890 , lv denied 85 NY2d 805 , cert denied 516 US 861 ; see also, Matter of Giffone v DeBuono, 263 AD2d 713, 714-715 ). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
People v. Sewell
neutral
1 sentence1975Since the delay in holding the hearing which eventually resulted in petitioner’s discharge was due exclusively to his conduct in procuring repeated stays in his attempt to permanently. enjoin the hearing, he is in no position to invoke the statutory limit (Matter of Bentley v Henninger, 10 AD2d 900 ; cf. Matter of Amkraut v Hults, 21 AD2d 260 ). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Amkraut v. Hults
green
1 sentence1975Since the delay in holding the hearing which eventually resulted in petitioner’s discharge was due exclusively to his conduct in procuring repeated stays in his attempt to permanently. enjoin the hearing, he is in no position to invoke the statutory limit (Matter of Bentley v Henninger, 10 AD2d 900 ; cf. Matter of Amkraut v Hults, 21 AD2d 260 ). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.