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 1934–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
Tinnirello v. Selskygreen2 sentences2014The fact that petitioner had an innocuous explanation for her possession of the item did not bar a finding that it constituted a weapon in the prison setting (see Matter of Proctor v Fischer, 107 AD3d 1267, 1267 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 853 [2013]; Matter of Tinnirello v Selsky, 51 AD3d 1238, 1239 [2008]). 2014The fact that petitioner had an innocuous explanation for her possession of the item did not bar a finding that it constituted a weapon in the prison setting (see Matter of Proctor v Fischer, 107 AD3d 1267, 1267 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 853 [2013]; Matter of Tinnirello v Selsky, 51 AD3d 1238, 1239 [2008]). | 5 | 5 |
Proctor v. Fischergreen2 sentences2014The fact that petitioner had an innocuous explanation for her possession of the item did not bar a finding that it constituted a weapon in the prison setting (see Matter of Proctor v Fischer, 107 AD3d 1267, 1267 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 853 [2013]; Matter of Tinnirello v Selsky, 51 AD3d 1238, 1239 [2008]). 2014The fact that petitioner had an innocuous explanation for her possession of the item did not bar a finding that it constituted a weapon in the prison setting (see Matter of Proctor v Fischer, 107 AD3d 1267, 1267 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 853 [2013]; Matter of Tinnirello v Selsky, 51 AD3d 1238, 1239 [2008]). | 2 | 3 |
Harvey v. Fischergreen2 sentences2013Although petitioner maintains that the item was not sharp enough to be considered a weapon, the applicable rule prohibits inmates from possessing “any item that may be classified as a weapon ... by description, use or appearance” (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [i]); thus, this presented a credibility issue for resolution by the Hearing Officer, who personally examined the item at the hearing (see Matter of Harvey v Fischer, 94 AD 3d 1303, 1303 [2012]; Matter of Tinnirello v Selsky, 51 AD3d 1238, 1239 [2008]; Matter of Mallen v Hearing Officer, Great Meadow Correctional Facility, 304 AD2d 879, 879 [20 2013Although petitioner maintains that the item was not sharp enough to be considered a weapon, the applicable rule prohibits inmates from possessing “any item that may be classified as a weapon ... by description, use or appearance” (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [i]); thus, this presented a credibility issue for resolution by the Hearing Officer, who personally examined the item at the hearing (see Matter of Harvey v Fischer, 94 AD 3d 1303, 1303 [2012]; Matter of Tinnirello v Selsky, 51 AD3d 1238, 1239 [2008]; Matter of Mallen v Hearing Officer, Great Meadow Correctional Facility, 304 AD2d 879, 879 [20 | 2 | 2 |
Reid v. Goordgreen2 sentences2013Finally, although petitioner argues that the Hearing Officer was biased and he was denied his right to call witnesses, these issues are not properly before us inasmuch as, among other things, they were not raised in the petition (see Matter of Pigmentel v Selsky, 19 AD3d 816, 817 [2005]; Matter of Reid v Goord, 14 AD3d 950, 951 [2005]). 2013Finally, although petitioner argues that the Hearing Officer was biased and he was denied his right to call witnesses, these issues are not properly before us inasmuch as, among other things, they were not raised in the petition (see Matter of Pigmentel v Selsky, 19 AD3d 816, 817 [2005]; Matter of Reid v Goord, 14 AD3d 950, 951 [2005]). | 2 | 2 |
Pigmentel v. Selskygreen2 sentences2013Finally, although petitioner argues that the Hearing Officer was biased and he was denied his right to call witnesses, these issues are not properly before us inasmuch as, among other things, they were not raised in the petition (see Matter of Pigmentel v Selsky, 19 AD3d 816, 817 [2005]; Matter of Reid v Goord, 14 AD3d 950, 951 [2005]). 2013Finally, although petitioner argues that the Hearing Officer was biased and he was denied his right to call witnesses, these issues are not properly before us inasmuch as, among other things, they were not raised in the petition (see Matter of Pigmentel v Selsky, 19 AD3d 816, 817 [2005]; Matter of Reid v Goord, 14 AD3d 950, 951 [2005]). | 2 | 2 |
Markov v. Markovgreen2 sentences2013Although petitioner maintains that the item was not sharp enough to be considered a weapon, the applicable rule prohibits inmates from possessing “any item that may be classified as a weapon ... by description, use or appearance” (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [i]); thus, this presented a credibility issue for resolution by the Hearing Officer, who personally examined the item at the hearing (see Matter of Harvey v Fischer, 94 AD 3d 1303, 1303 [2012]; Matter of Tinnirello v Selsky, 51 AD3d 1238, 1239 [2008]; Matter of Mallen v Hearing Officer, Great Meadow Correctional Facility, 304 AD2d 879, 879 [20 2013Although petitioner maintains that the item was not sharp enough to be considered a weapon, the applicable rule prohibits inmates from possessing “any item that may be classified as a weapon ... by description, use or appearance” (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [i]); thus, this presented a credibility issue for resolution by the Hearing Officer, who personally examined the item at the hearing (see Matter of Harvey v Fischer, 94 AD 3d 1303, 1303 [2012]; Matter of Tinnirello v Selsky, 51 AD3d 1238, 1239 [2008]; Matter of Mallen v Hearing Officer, Great Meadow Correctional Facility, 304 AD2d 879, 879 [20 | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Manko v. City of Buffalo
green
1 sentence1947(Manko v. City of Buffalo, 294 N. Y. 109 .) The rule of res judicata as stated by Cardozo, Ch. | 1 | 1947–1947 |
Banner Milling Co. v. State of New York
green
1 sentence1941(Banner Milling Co. v. State of New York, 240 N. Y. 533, 541 .) Here, we dismiss this item of the claim upon the ground that it is entirely speculative and that there has been no proper proof of damages, if any, sustained. | 1 | 1941–1941 |
Waddell v. Mayor of New-York
green
1 sentence1941(Waddell v. Mayor, etc., of City of New York, 8 Barb. 95 .) On. this item of their claim, therefore, we believe claimants are entitled to recover. | 1 | 1941–1941 |
Post & McCord v. City of New York
neutral
1 sentence1934(Post & McCord v. City of New York, 86 Misc. 300 ; affd., 166 App. Div. 919 ; Long v. Rouse, 241 id.-.) If-the pleadings under strict construction would not fully support a judgment against the surety company in favor of the board of education, the court, considering the whole record, had ample authority to conform the pleadings to the proof. | 1 | 1934–1934 |
Wessels v. Linch
neutral
1 sentence1934(Post & McCord v. City of New York, 86 Misc. 300 ; affd., 166 App. Div. 919 ; Long v. Rouse, 241 id.-.) If-the pleadings under strict construction would not fully support a judgment against the surety company in favor of the board of education, the court, considering the whole record, had ample authority to conform the pleadings to the proof. | 1 | 1934–1934 |
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.