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 4 courts 1998–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hearst Corp. v. Clynegreen2 sentences2009Some of the legal issues of statutory interpretation pre sented herein—in particular, the scope of a Pringle hearing— arise frequently in the courts and are likely to evade review given that pretrial suspension orders terminate when the criminal case is resolved (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]; Matter of Avella v Batt, 33 AD3d 77, 80 [2006]). 2009Some of the legal issues of statutory interpretation pre sented herein—in particular, the scope of a Pringle hearing— arise frequently in the courts and are likely to evade review given that pretrial suspension orders terminate when the criminal case is resolved (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]; Matter of Avella v Batt, 33 AD3d 77, 80 [2006]). | 2 | 2 |
Schmitt v. Skoviragreen2 sentences2009Significantly, a Pringle hearing is a civil administrative proceeding (see Matter of Schmitt v Skovira, 53 AD3d 918, 919-920 [2008]) which runs parallel to the criminal proceedings. 2009Significantly, a Pringle hearing is a civil administrative proceeding (see Matter of Schmitt v Skovira, 53 AD3d 918, 919-920 [2008]) which runs parallel to the criminal proceedings. | 2 | 2 |
Pringle v. Wolfegreen2 sentences2018Following a Pringle hearing ( see Pringle v Wolfe , 88 NY2d 426 [1996], cert denied 519 US 1009 [1996]), respondent City Court Judge of the City of Albany, among other things, suspended petitioner's driver's license under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1193 (2) (e) (7) pending petitioner's prosecution for the underlying charges. 2018Following a Pringle hearing ( see Pringle v Wolfe , 88 NY2d 426 [1996], cert denied 519 US 1009 [1996]), respondent City Court Judge of the City of Albany, among other things, suspended petitioner's driver's license under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1193 (2) (e) (7) pending petitioner's prosecution for the underlying charges. | 1 | 8 |
People v. Ellisgreen1 sentence2011Stops based on considerations of public safety are warranted even where an “actual violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law [is] not . . . detectable” (People v Ingle, 36 NY2d 413, 420 [1975]; see Saarinen v Kerr, 84 NY2d 494, 502-503 [1994]; People v Ellis, 169 AD2d 838, 839 [1991]; People v Bici, 32 Misc 3d 136[A] , 2011 NY Slip Op 51474[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Inglegreen1 sentence2011Stops based on considerations of public safety are warranted even where an “actual violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law [is] not . . . detectable” (People v Ingle, 36 NY2d 413, 420 [1975]; see Saarinen v Kerr, 84 NY2d 494, 502-503 [1994]; People v Ellis, 169 AD2d 838, 839 [1991]; People v Bici, 32 Misc 3d 136[A] , 2011 NY Slip Op 51474[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]). | 1 | 1 |
Saarinen v. Kerrgreen1 sentence2011Stops based on considerations of public safety are warranted even where an “actual violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law [is] not . . . detectable” (People v Ingle, 36 NY2d 413, 420 [1975]; see Saarinen v Kerr, 84 NY2d 494, 502-503 [1994]; People v Ellis, 169 AD2d 838, 839 [1991]; People v Bici, 32 Misc 3d 136[A] , 2011 NY Slip Op 51474[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Freelandgreen2 sentences2009While issues pertaining to the lawfulness of the police stop, probable cause for arrest, and whether the breath test device was working properly at the time of the test are relevant to the admissibility of breath test results at a criminal trial (see People v Freeland, 68 NY2d 699, 700 [1986]), and may ultimately bear on the determination of criminal culpability, they are beyond the scope of a Pringle hearing. 2009While issues pertaining to the lawfulness of the police stop, probable cause for arrest, and whether the breath test device was working properly at the time of the test are relevant to the admissibility of breath test results at a criminal trial (see People v Freeland, 68 NY2d 699, 700 [1986]), and may ultimately bear on the determination of criminal culpability, they are beyond the scope of a Pringle hearing. | 1 | 1 |
King v. Jacksongreen2 sentences2009Initially, we note that because the indictment against petitioner was dismissed following the commencement of this proceeding—thereby terminating the temporary suspension of his license—this matter is moot (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]; Matter of King v Jackson, 52 AD3d 974, 975 [2008]). 2009Initially, we note that because the indictment against petitioner was dismissed following the commencement of this proceeding—thereby terminating the temporary suspension of his license—this matter is moot (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]; Matter of King v Jackson, 52 AD3d 974, 975 [2008]). | 1 | 1 |
NRG Energy, Inc. v. Crottygreen2 sentences2009The exception to the mootness doctrine exists only where all of the following circumstances are present: “(1) a likelihood of repetition, either between the parties or among other members of the public; (2) a phenomenon typically evading review; and (3) a showing of significant or important questions not previously passed on, i.e., substantial and novel issues” (Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d at 714-715 ; see Matter of NRG Energy, Inc. v Crotty, 18 AD3d at 920 ). 2009The exception to the mootness doctrine exists only where all of the following circumstances are present: “(1) a likelihood of repetition, either between the parties or among other members of the public; (2) a phenomenon typically evading review; and (3) a showing of significant or important questions not previously passed on, i.e., substantial and novel issues” (Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d at 714-715 ; see Matter of NRG Energy, Inc. v Crotty, 18 AD3d at 920 ). | 1 | 1 |
Avella v. Battgreen2 sentences2009Some of the legal issues of statutory interpretation pre sented herein—in particular, the scope of a Pringle hearing— arise frequently in the courts and are likely to evade review given that pretrial suspension orders terminate when the criminal case is resolved (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]; Matter of Avella v Batt, 33 AD3d 77, 80 [2006]). 2009Some of the legal issues of statutory interpretation pre sented herein—in particular, the scope of a Pringle hearing— arise frequently in the courts and are likely to evade review given that pretrial suspension orders terminate when the criminal case is resolved (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]; Matter of Avella v Batt, 33 AD3d 77, 80 [2006]). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pringle v. Wolfe
neutral
2 sentences2018Following a Pringle hearing ( see Pringle v Wolfe , 88 NY2d 426 [1996], cert denied 519 US 1009 [1996]), respondent City Court Judge of the City of Albany, among other things, suspended petitioner's driver's license under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1193 (2) (e) (7) pending petitioner's prosecution for the underlying charges. 2018Following a Pringle hearing ( see Pringle v Wolfe , 88 NY2d 426 [1996], cert denied 519 US 1009 [1996]), respondent City Court Judge of the City of Albany, among other things, suspended petitioner's driver's license under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1193 (2) (e) (7) pending petitioner's prosecution for the underlying charges. | 4 | 2008–2018 |
People v. Van Buren
green
1 sentence2011We need not determine whether Officer Lombardo was within, or in the “vicinity” of, the watershed boundary or any New York City structure or easement property in relation to New York City’s water supply when he stopped defendant, at a location about 1,000 yards from the easement boundary (cf. CPL 1.20 [34] [o]; People v Van Buren, 4 NY3d at 648 ), and thus, within his geographical jurisdiction, because, as the Justice Court determined in a separate order delivered from the bench immediately following the April 10, 2009 Pringle hearing, the officer properly stopped defendant for erratic driving | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Czajka v. Breedlove
green
2 sentences2009Since a district attorney is a public servant (see CPL 1.20 [31]; Penal Law § 10.00 [15]; Matter of Katherine B. v Cataldo, 5 NY3d 196 , 203 n 5 [2005]), his or her limited role at a Pringle hearing is by “necessary implication” (Czajka v Breedlove, 200 AD2d at 265 ; see Matter of Schmitt v Skovira, 53 AD3d at 921 ). 2009Since a district attorney is a public servant (see CPL 1.20 [31]; Penal Law § 10.00 [15]; Matter of Katherine B. v Cataldo, 5 NY3d 196 , 203 n 5 [2005]), his or her limited role at a Pringle hearing is by “necessary implication” (Czajka v Breedlove, 200 AD2d at 265 ; see Matter of Schmitt v Skovira, 53 AD3d at 921 ). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Mtr of Katherine B v. Cataldo
green
2 sentences2009Since a district attorney is a public servant (see CPL 1.20 [31]; Penal Law § 10.00 [15]; Matter of Katherine B. v Cataldo, 5 NY3d 196 , 203 n 5 [2005]), his or her limited role at a Pringle hearing is by “necessary implication” (Czajka v Breedlove, 200 AD2d at 265 ; see Matter of Schmitt v Skovira, 53 AD3d at 921 ). 2009Since a district attorney is a public servant (see CPL 1.20 [31]; Penal Law § 10.00 [15]; Matter of Katherine B. v Cataldo, 5 NY3d 196 , 203 n 5 [2005]), his or her limited role at a Pringle hearing is by “necessary implication” (Czajka v Breedlove, 200 AD2d at 265 ; see Matter of Schmitt v Skovira, 53 AD3d at 921 ). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Vanderminden v. Tarantino
green
2 sentences2009The third issue—the nature and scope of the Pringle hearing—has previously been addressed (see Pringle v Wolfe, 88 NY2d at 434-435; Matter of Vanderminden v Tarantino, 60 AD3d at 58 ) and, therefore, does not fall within the exception. 2009The third issue—the nature and scope of the Pringle hearing—has previously been addressed (see Pringle v Wolfe, 88 NY2d at 434-435; Matter of Vanderminden v Tarantino, 60 AD3d at 58 ) and, therefore, does not fall within the exception. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.