written statement claim (New York) · Go Syfert
← New York issues

written statement claim in New York

8 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1903–2004 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Tosca v. Selskygreen
nyappdiv · 2002 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004
1 sentence

2004Substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt was presented at his disciplinary hearing in the form of the detailed misbehavior report and the written statement and hearing testimony of the inmate complainant (see Matter of Tosca v Selsky, 298 AD2d 738, 739 [2002]).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (8)

CaseCitedYears
In re the Opening of Richard Street neutral
· 1910
2 sentences

1913The language is: “Provided, however, that within six years after the filing of such map [that is, a map or plan indicating that the street is to be discontinued] any owner or owners interested and affected by such discontinuance and closing shall present to the chief financial officer or comptroller- of such city a written statement or claim for compensation, * * * or be forever barred from claiming compensation for such closing or discontinuance.” (§5.) It has been held that this limitation applies literally to the case of the owner of land abutting upon a projected street, road or avenue, no

1911(Matter of Richard Street, 138 App. Div. 821 ; Matter of Mayor, etc. [Grote Street], 139 id. 69.) We are now, however, presented with a very different state of affairs.

21911–1913
James v. Goord neutral
nyappdiv · 2003
1 sentence

2004Petitioner’s testimony and that of his inmate witness raised issues of credibility for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see Matter of James v Goord, 306 AD2d 714 [2003]).

12004–2004
Fletcher v. Selsky green
nyappdiv · 1993
1 sentence

1999As a result, petitioner was able to present his defense, and the inaudible portions of the hearing “are not 'so significant as to preclude meaningful review of the proceedings, particularly as they relate to petitioner’s arguments’ ” (Matter of Webb v Goord, 265 AD2d 809 , quoting Matter of Fletcher v Selsky, 199 AD2d 865, 866 , lv denied 83 NY2d 753 ).

11999–1999
Webb v. Goord green
nyappdiv · 1999
1 sentence

1999As a result, petitioner was able to present his defense, and the inaudible portions of the hearing “are not 'so significant as to preclude meaningful review of the proceedings, particularly as they relate to petitioner’s arguments’ ” (Matter of Webb v Goord, 265 AD2d 809 , quoting Matter of Fletcher v Selsky, 199 AD2d 865, 866 , lv denied 83 NY2d 753 ).

11999–1999
Baker v. Wilmot green
nyappdiv · 1978
1 sentence

1984Indeed, such is the purpose of the written statement requirement (see Matter of Amato v Ward, 41 NY2d 469 , 472; Matter of Baker v Wilmot, 65 AD2d 884, 885 , app dsmd 46 NY2d 939 ).

11984–1984
People v. Forest green
nyappdiv · 1975
1 sentence

1981(See People v Forest, 50 AD2d 260, 262 .) Furthermore, it appears that the prior written statement by defense witness Willie Norton contained exculpatory evidence regarding the first three counts of the indictment.

11981–1981
Matter of Mayor, Aldermen Commonalty of City of N.Y. neutral
· 1909
1 sentence

1910(Matter of Mayor, etc. [Walton Ave.], 131 App. Div. 714 ; affd., 197 N. Y. 518 .) Some time after the closing of .the street appellant conveyed the property to one Dowd, and he, or those claiming nnder him, did file claims within the statutory period.

11910–1910
In Re the Estate of Miles green
ny · 1902
1 sentence

1903Matter of Miles, 170 N. Y. 75 .

11903–1903

Where else courts name it

IN 12 (1996–2025) NY 8 (1903–2004) OH 7 (1999–2017) TX 6 (1915–2015) KS 5 (1961–2026) CO 5 (2007–2026) UT 5 (2004–2022) IL 4 (1970–2024) NE 3 (1995–2021) PA 3 (2016–2022) FL 3 (1995–2024) CA 3 (2003–2025) AL 3 (1996–2005) AZ 2 (1996–2011) WA 2 (2010–2010) KY 2 (2010–2023) MD 2 (1987–1996) CT 2 (1938–2021) AR 2 (1943–2014) NJ 2 (1987–1995) DC 2 (1972–1986)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check