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 4 courts 1974–1999 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cirale v. 80 Pine Street Corp.green2 sentences1975The hallmark of this privilege is that it is applicable when the public interest would be harmed if material were to lose its cloak of confidentiality.” ( 35 NY2d, at p 117 .) Since Cirale v 80 Pine St. 1975Corp., 35 NY2d 113, 117 .) This privilege attaches to "confidential communications between public officers, and to public officers, in the performance of their duties, where the public interest requires that such confidential communications or the sources should not be divulged.” (People v Keating, 286 App Div 150, 153 .) The hallmark of this privilege is that it applies when the public interest would be harmed if the material were to lose its cloak of confidentiality. | 1 | 3 |
| 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. Keating
green
2 sentences1981Such a privilege attaches to ‘confidential communications between public officers, and to public officers, in the performance of their duties, where the public interest requires that such confidential communications or the sources should not be divulged.’ (People v. Keating, 286 App. Div. 150 , 153 * * *.) The hallmark of this privilege is that it is applicable when the public interest would be harmed if the material were to lose its cloak of confidentiality *** It has been said that the privilege is a qualified one, which may be ineffective when it appears that the disclosure of the privilege 1975Such common-law privilege attaches to "confidential communications between public officers, and to public officers, in the performance of their duties, where the public interest requires that such confidential communications or the sources should not be divulged.” (People v Keating, 286 App Div 150, 153 .) "The hallmark of this privilege is that it is applicable when the public interest would be harmed if the material were to lose its cloak of confidentiality.” (Cirale v 80 Pine St. | 5 | 1974–1981 |
Rawcliffe v. Aguayo
green
1 sentence1999As shown above, the failure to furnish a security deposit at the time of execution of the Sublease (effected retroactively by Ms. Hallmark’s stop-payment order, which caused her bank to dishonor her $7,300 check) constituted a highly material failure of consideration — one which, by denying the Shermans their bargained-for status as secured creditors, left them in a position “substantially different from what was contracted for.” In Rawcliffe v Aguayo (supra), the court held that a seller of real estate was entitled to rescind the contract of sale for failure of consideration, because the chec | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Zuckerman v. New York State Board of Parole
green
1 sentence1976The hallmark of this privilege is its applicability when the public interest would be harmed if the material sought were to lose its cloak of confidentiality (Zuckerman v New York State Bd. of Parole, supra [citing Cirale]). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.