7 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1974–2005 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 |
|---|---|---|
Omath Holding Co. v. City of New Yorkgreen1 sentence2005Permitting defendant such a temporally unrestricted right would constitute an unreasonable restraint upon the alienation of property (see Omath Holding Co. v City of New York, 149 AD2d 179, 184-185 [1989]; cf. Wildenstein & Co. v Wallis, 79 NY2d 641 [1992]; Allen v Biltmore Tissue Corp., 2 NY2d 534, 542 [1957]), and is not justifiable by reference to some salutary underlying purpose (see Metropolitan Transp. | 1 | 1 |
Allen v. Biltmore Tissue Corp.green1 sentence2005Permitting defendant such a temporally unrestricted right would constitute an unreasonable restraint upon the alienation of property (see Omath Holding Co. v City of New York, 149 AD2d 179, 184-185 [1989]; cf. Wildenstein & Co. v Wallis, 79 NY2d 641 [1992]; Allen v Biltmore Tissue Corp., 2 NY2d 534, 542 [1957]), and is not justifiable by reference to some salutary underlying purpose (see Metropolitan Transp. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Walkergreen1 sentence2002Regarding defendant’s 1986 convictions, permitting inquiry into the felony level of the crimes and the sentence imposed, but not that they were drug related or the underlying facts, reflects that the court balanced the relevant factors and eliminated the prejudice that may have resulted if the jury were aware that defendant had previously committed drug-related crimes (see, People v Walker, supra at 459; People v Smith, 59 NY2d 156, 168 ; People v Sandoval, supra at 375, 377-378 ). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Sandovalgreen2 sentences2002Permitting inquiry into defendant’s theft-related convictions — crimes involving dishonesty — was proper as the acts bore on her credibility and veracity as a witness (see, People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371, 374, 376-377 ). 2002Regarding defendant’s 1986 convictions, permitting inquiry into the felony level of the crimes and the sentence imposed, but not that they were drug related or the underlying facts, reflects that the court balanced the relevant factors and eliminated the prejudice that may have resulted if the jury were aware that defendant had previously committed drug-related crimes (see, People v Walker, supra at 459; People v Smith, 59 NY2d 156, 168 ; People v Sandoval, supra at 375, 377-378 ). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Josephgreen1 sentence2000(See, e.g., People v Glover, 60 NY2d 783 [1983] [trial court’s limited closure of courtroom during rape victim’s testimony was justified by need to prevent disruption during sensitive testimony], and People v Joseph, 59 NY2d 496, 498 [1983] [trial court properly excluded all spectators, including defendant’s family and Mends, from courtroom during sodomy victim’s testimony on ground that closure would “foster the truth-discovery process”]; see also, CPL 65.00 et setq. [provides that vulnerable child witness may testify viá closed circuit television], and CPL 60.42 [places limits on admissibili | 1 | 1 |
People v. Plevygreen1 sentence1993Permitting defendant to relitigate the coercion issue by offering his own testimony will involve a "minimal expenditure of time in a hearing already under way” (People v Plevy, 52 NY2d, at 66), and thus there is no question that collateral estoppel should give way on the coercion issue. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Symphony Space, Inc. v. Pergola Properties, Inc.
green
1 sentence2005Auth. v Bruken Realty Corp., 67 NY2d 156 [1986]; Symphony Space v Pergola Props., 214 AD2d 66 [1995], affd 88 NY2d 466 [1996]), for none is evident. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Wildenstein & Co. v. Wallis
green
1 sentence2005Permitting defendant such a temporally unrestricted right would constitute an unreasonable restraint upon the alienation of property (see Omath Holding Co. v City of New York, 149 AD2d 179, 184-185 [1989]; cf. Wildenstein & Co. v Wallis, 79 NY2d 641 [1992]; Allen v Biltmore Tissue Corp., 2 NY2d 534, 542 [1957]), and is not justifiable by reference to some salutary underlying purpose (see Metropolitan Transp. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Symphony Space, Inc. v. Pergola Properties, Inc.
green
1 sentence2005Auth. v Bruken Realty Corp., 67 NY2d 156 [1986]; Symphony Space v Pergola Props., 214 AD2d 66 [1995], affd 88 NY2d 466 [1996]), for none is evident. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Bruken Realty Corp.
green
1 sentence2005Auth. v Bruken Realty Corp., 67 NY2d 156 [1986]; Symphony Space v Pergola Props., 214 AD2d 66 [1995], affd 88 NY2d 466 [1996]), for none is evident. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
People v. Smith
green
1 sentence2002Regarding defendant’s 1986 convictions, permitting inquiry into the felony level of the crimes and the sentence imposed, but not that they were drug related or the underlying facts, reflects that the court balanced the relevant factors and eliminated the prejudice that may have resulted if the jury were aware that defendant had previously committed drug-related crimes (see, People v Walker, supra at 459; People v Smith, 59 NY2d 156, 168 ; People v Sandoval, supra at 375, 377-378 ). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
People v. Glover
green
1 sentence2000(See, e.g., People v Glover, 60 NY2d 783 [1983] [trial court’s limited closure of courtroom during rape victim’s testimony was justified by need to prevent disruption during sensitive testimony], and People v Joseph, 59 NY2d 496, 498 [1983] [trial court properly excluded all spectators, including defendant’s family and Mends, from courtroom during sodomy victim’s testimony on ground that closure would “foster the truth-discovery process”]; see also, CPL 65.00 et setq. [provides that vulnerable child witness may testify viá closed circuit television], and CPL 60.42 [places limits on admissibili | 1 | 2000–2000 |
In re Gary
green
1 sentence1997Permitting defendant to defend the instant action by asserting the legal effect of the release on its duty to defend and indemnify in no way impairs the validity of the prior judgment (c f., Saxl v Roberts, 37 AD2d 932 ; Kupferman v Consolidated Research & Mfr. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
People v. Smith
green
1 sentence1991Although it is accepted practice for the court to examine the prospective child witness without the intervention of counsel (see, People v Byrnes, 33 NY2d 343, 351 ), there is nothing to preclude the court from permitting defense counsel or the prosecution to participate in that examination (see, supra, at 351; cf., People v Smith, 104 AD2d 160 ). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
People v. Byrnes
green
1 sentence1991Although it is accepted practice for the court to examine the prospective child witness without the intervention of counsel (see, People v Byrnes, 33 NY2d 343, 351 ), there is nothing to preclude the court from permitting defense counsel or the prosecution to participate in that examination (see, supra, at 351; cf., People v Smith, 104 AD2d 160 ). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Robert Eddie Louis Jackson v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections
green
2 sentences1974(Jackson v. Beto, 388 F. 2d 409, 411 , n. 5 and cases cited therein.) "While there is nothing to preclude the court from permitting defense counsel to participate in the examination of the prospective witness by submitting questions or, for that matter, by cross-examining, conduct of the voir dire by counsel for defendant is not a matter of constitutional right. 1974(Jackson v. Beto, supra, p. 411 .) We have considered defendant’s other points for reversal and have found them to be without merit. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.