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 5 courts 1924–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Tavaresgreen1 sentence2020However, "by pleading guilty, defendant forfeited his right to appellate review of County Court's denial of his motion" ( People v Tavares , 273 AD2d 707, 707 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 939 [2000]; see People v Arvelo , 16 AD3d 128, 129 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 883 [2005]; People v Nitzke , 152 AD2d 815, 815 [1989]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Nitzkegreen1 sentence2020However, "by pleading guilty, defendant forfeited his right to appellate review of County Court's denial of his motion" ( People v Tavares , 273 AD2d 707, 707 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 939 [2000]; see People v Arvelo , 16 AD3d 128, 129 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 883 [2005]; People v Nitzke , 152 AD2d 815, 815 [1989]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Arvelogreen1 sentence2020However, "by pleading guilty, defendant forfeited his right to appellate review of County Court's denial of his motion" ( People v Tavares , 273 AD2d 707, 707 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 939 [2000]; see People v Arvelo , 16 AD3d 128, 129 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 883 [2005]; People v Nitzke , 152 AD2d 815, 815 [1989]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Robinsongreen1 sentence2001Finally, the People argue that they are “entitled to a reasonable adjournment following a decision on a motion made by the defense for the defendant’s benefit.” While the language of CPL 30.30 (4) (a) does not strictly provide for this exception, it is true that the courts have read this interpretation into the statute, in the context of preparing responses to pretrial motions (People v Robinson, 225 AD2d 399, 401 [1st Dept 1996]), or to prepare for hearings after the determination of pretrial motions (People v Roebuck, 279 AD2d 350 [1st Dept 2001]), which the statute does mention. | 1 | 1 |
Security Finance Co. v. Stuartgreen1 sentence1948Order insofar as it denies plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment affirmed, and order insofar as it dismisses plaintiff's complaint for insufficiency reversed on the law, without costs of this appeal to either party, and judgment entered thereon vacated, upon the ground that a motion made under rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice deals only with the question as to whether there are triable issues of fact in the case and is not addressed to the pleadings." (Miorin v. Miorin, 257 App. Div. 656 ; see, also, Security Finance Co. v. Stuart, 130 Mise. 538, affd. 226 App. Div. 725 .) Moreover, w | 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. Roebuck
green
1 sentence2001Finally, the People argue that they are “entitled to a reasonable adjournment following a decision on a motion made by the defense for the defendant’s benefit.” While the language of CPL 30.30 (4) (a) does not strictly provide for this exception, it is true that the courts have read this interpretation into the statute, in the context of preparing responses to pretrial motions (People v Robinson, 225 AD2d 399, 401 [1st Dept 1996]), or to prepare for hearings after the determination of pretrial motions (People v Roebuck, 279 AD2d 350 [1st Dept 2001]), which the statute does mention. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
People v. Briggs
green
1 sentence1986The instant motion therefore constitutes renewal of the prior motion to dismiss, on grounds that the court overlooked the ruling of People v Briggs ( 38 NY2d 319 [1975]). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Rockland-Rockport Lime Co. v. . Leary
green
1 sentence1948(See Boekland-Bockport Lime Co. v. Leary, 203 N. Y. 469, 484 ; Lawrence v. Miller, 86 K. | 1 | 1948–1948 |
Steinmann v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
green
1 sentence1948Order insofar as it denies plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment affirmed, and order insofar as it dismisses plaintiff's complaint for insufficiency reversed on the law, without costs of this appeal to either party, and judgment entered thereon vacated, upon the ground that a motion made under rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice deals only with the question as to whether there are triable issues of fact in the case and is not addressed to the pleadings." (Miorin v. Miorin, 257 App. Div. 656 ; see, also, Security Finance Co. v. Stuart, 130 Mise. 538, affd. 226 App. Div. 725 .) Moreover, w | 1 | 1948–1948 |
Arcadia Hosiery Co. v. Fine
neutral
1 sentence1931In the case of Arcadia Hosiery Co. v. Fine ( 135 Misc. 663 ) the justice writing the opinion, and the cases therein cited, held that a judgment rendered pursuant to a motion made under rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice involves a trial in so far as costs are concerned, and brings the proposition within the purview of section 164 of the Municipal Court Code. | 1 | 1931–1931 |
Lowe v. Plainfield Trust Co. of Plainfield
neutral
2 sentences1930(Lowe v. Plainfield Trust Co., 216 App. Div. 72 ; Levan v. American Safety Table Co., Inc., 222 id. 110 ; Reed v. Neu-Pro Construction Corporation, 226 id. 70.) Rule 104 of the Rules of Civil Practice, in so far as it relates to sham pleadings, had its derivation in section 538 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1930(Lowe v. Plainfield Trust Co., 216 App. Div. 72 ; Levan v. American Safety Table Co., Inc., 222 id. 110 ; Reed v. Neu-Pro Construction Corporation, 226 id. 70.) Rule 104 of the Rules of Civil Practice, in so far as it relates to sham pleadings, had its derivation in section 538 of the Code of Civil Procedure. | 1 | 1930–1930 |
Welch v. City of Niagara Falls
neutral
1 sentence1928(Welch v. City of Niagara Falls, 210 App. Div. 170 ; Levan v. Am. | 1 | 1928–1928 |
Mauro v. Alvino
green
1 sentence1924Respondents’ brief apparently also proceeds on the theory that since, as decided in Mauro v. Alvino, 90 Misc. | 1 | 1924–1924 |
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.