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 1933–2004 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Minetgreen2 sentences1990We concluded in Di Falco (supra, at 488) that the presence of a duly admitted prosecutor lacking subject matter jurisdiction so "infringe[d] upon the secrecy requirement” that the integrity of the proceeding was irreparably tainted, providing an additional reason for the indictment’s dismissal (see also, People v Minet, supra, at 323-324). 1990As was noted in Di Falco (supra, at 488), "[s]ecrecy is a vital requisite of Grand Jury proceedings” (accord, People v Minet, 296 NY 315, 323 ). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Di Napoligreen1 sentence1979The customary reasons for requiring secrecy (and therefore the pertinent considerations for a court in exercising its discretion to release or not release) are set forth in People v Di Napoli (supra, p 235), "Those most frequently mentioned by courts and commentators are these: (1) prevention of flight by a defendant who is about to be indicted; (2) protection of the grand jurors from interference from those under investigation; (3) prevention of subornation of perjury and tampering with prospective witnesses at the trial to be held as a result of any indictment the grand jury returns; (4) pro | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Levitt v. Wanamaker
neutral
1 sentence2004Wanamaker, Director, Erie County Sales Tax Dep't (June 20, 1957), that the inclusion of more specifically-delineated exceptions to the secrecy rule — e.g. , the State Comptroller could inspect tax returns for the purpose of an audit of a refund to a taxpayer, see , e.g. , Tax Law § 202 — meant that the Comptroller's duties and powers granted by sections 33 and 34 of the General Municipal Law were not sufficient to constitute "other law." 12 A.D.2d at 151 -52 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
People v. Hyde
green
1 sentence1994That very same rule also operates as an impediment to his service as a videotape operator (cf., People v Hyde, 85 AD2d 745, 746 ). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Dunlea v. Goldmark
neutral
1 sentence1976As a matter of fact, this court in Matter of Dunlea v Goldmark ( 85 Misc 2d 198 ) limited the secrecy privilege or confidential communications privilege of the Division of the Budget and allowed petitioners access to certain records in the Division of the Budget. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
People v. Bishop
neutral
1 sentence1973The secrecy and the immunity from obligation to account for its actions remain a feature of the Grand Jury to our own day (see People v. Bishop, 65 Misc 2d 889, 890 ). | 1 | 1973–1973 |
In re Gerling
neutral
1 sentence1933(Matter of Gerling v. Nichols, 123 Misc. 811 .) The application for the writ of mandamus is denied. | 1 | 1933–1933 |
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.