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.
7 New York opinions name it 1 courts 1976–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Morrissey v. Brewergreen2 sentences1977The situation here differs from the situation where the parolee’s delinquency is based on factual situations other than 'on conviction of another crime’ (Morrissey v Brewer, supra, p 490). 1976The situation here differs from the situation where the parolee’s delinquency is based on factual situations other than "on conviction of another crime” (Morrissey v Brewer, supra, p 490). | 2 | 2 |
Vidal v. Annuccigreen1 sentence2019Turning to petitioner's procedural contentions, his contention regarding the delay in conducting the hearing lacks merit, as the hearing was completed within the time frames set forth in the extensions that were necessary to, among other things, permit petitioner to receive his requested assistance and obtain testimony from requested witnesses ( see Matter of Douglas v Annucci , 153 AD3d 1014, 1015 [2017]; Matter of Vidal v Annucci , 149 AD3d 1366, 1367 [2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 906 [2017]; Matter of Thousand v Prack , 139 AD3d 1212, 1213 [2016]). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Shearer v. Annuccigreen1 sentence2019"In any event, the time requirements [contained in 7 NYCRR 251-5.1] are directory, not mandatory, and an inmate must demonstrate prejudice as a result of any delay prior to the commencement of such a hearing" ( Matter of Ayuso v Venettozzi , 159 AD3d 1208 , 1209-1210 [2018] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Shearer v Annucci , 155 AD3d 1277, 1278 [2017]). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Thousand v. Prackgreen1 sentence2019Turning to petitioner's procedural contentions, his contention regarding the delay in conducting the hearing lacks merit, as the hearing was completed within the time frames set forth in the extensions that were necessary to, among other things, permit petitioner to receive his requested assistance and obtain testimony from requested witnesses ( see Matter of Douglas v Annucci , 153 AD3d 1014, 1015 [2017]; Matter of Vidal v Annucci , 149 AD3d 1366, 1367 [2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 906 [2017]; Matter of Thousand v Prack , 139 AD3d 1212, 1213 [2016]). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Douglas v. Annuccigreen1 sentence2019Turning to petitioner's procedural contentions, his contention regarding the delay in conducting the hearing lacks merit, as the hearing was completed within the time frames set forth in the extensions that were necessary to, among other things, permit petitioner to receive his requested assistance and obtain testimony from requested witnesses ( see Matter of Douglas v Annucci , 153 AD3d 1014, 1015 [2017]; Matter of Vidal v Annucci , 149 AD3d 1366, 1367 [2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 906 [2017]; Matter of Thousand v Prack , 139 AD3d 1212, 1213 [2016]). | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. State of New Yorkgreen1 sentence2018In any event, the "time requirements . . . are directory, not mandatory, and an inmate must demonstrate prejudice as a result of any delay prior to the commencement of such a hearing" ( Miller v State of New York , 156 AD3d 1067, 1067 [2017] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Vidal v. Annucci
neutral
1 sentence2019Turning to petitioner's procedural contentions, his contention regarding the delay in conducting the hearing lacks merit, as the hearing was completed within the time frames set forth in the extensions that were necessary to, among other things, permit petitioner to receive his requested assistance and obtain testimony from requested witnesses ( see Matter of Douglas v Annucci , 153 AD3d 1014, 1015 [2017]; Matter of Vidal v Annucci , 149 AD3d 1366, 1367 [2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 906 [2017]; Matter of Thousand v Prack , 139 AD3d 1212, 1213 [2016]). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Blair
green
1 sentence2010Moreover, under these particular circumstances, the proper remedy is not the immediate release of the appellant, but an expeditious hearing pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07 (see Matter of State of New York v Blair, 69 AD3d at 21-22 ; State of N.Y. ex rel. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Seelig v. Koehler
green
1 sentence1997Petitioner’s contentions that the delay in conducting the test following his random selection (see, Matter of Seelig v Koehler, 76 NY2d 87 , cert denied 498 US 847 ) violated departmental policy and that his designated supervisor targeted his test day to coincide with his return from vacation are without support in the record. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Trotta v. Ward
green
1 sentence1997Nor is dismissal from the department for use of marihuana so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to our sense of fairness (Trotta v Ward, 77 NY2d 827 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Seelig v. Koehler
neutral
1 sentence1997Petitioner’s contentions that the delay in conducting the test following his random selection (see, Matter of Seelig v Koehler, 76 NY2d 87 , cert denied 498 US 847 ) violated departmental policy and that his designated supervisor targeted his test day to coincide with his return from vacation are without support in the record. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Grossman v. Rankin
green
1 sentence1983Thus, these time requirements should be deemed directory and not mandatory (see Matter of Grossman v Rankin, 43 NY2d 493, 501 ). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.