53 New York opinions name it 13 courts 1861–2026 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lemon v. Kurtzmanred2 sentences1996In apparently concluding that no Establishment Clause violation occurred here because A.A. does not require a participant to adhere to a sectarian belief in God, but permits one to entertain a secular concept of a Higher Power devoid of religious content, the Appellate Division committed a second error by disregarding application of the second prong of the three-part test (the purpose-effect-entanglement test) for primary Establishment Clause analysis articulated in Lemon v Kurtzman ( 403 US 602 , supra). 1996The foregoing opinions of all nine of the Justices in Lee v Weisman dealing with anticoercion as a settled precept of the Establishment Clause either independently or as a prohibited governmental endorsement of religion in violation of the second prong of the three-part Establishment Clause test of Lemon v Kurtzman (supra), effectively dispose of the dissent’s criticism that we have wrongfully interjected a "dominant” coercion element (dissenting opn, at 704; see also, id,., at 703), in a "novel” (id., at 703) or "tenuous” manner (id., at 697) unsupported by precedent, to Establishment Clause | 1 | 5 |
Zorach v. Clausongreen2 sentences1996Likewise, in Zorach v Clauson ( 343 US 306 ) — a case invoked by the dissent (dissenting opn, at 705, 710, 713) for the proposition that petitioner was not coerced by the threat of lost eligibility for the Family Reunion Program — Justice Douglas, in rejecting the Establishment Clause claim, expressly relied upon the total absence of any influence by school authorities on a student’s election to take religious instruction: "The present record indeed tells us that the school authorities are neutral in this regard and do no more than release students whose parents so request. 1996Likewise, in Zorach v Clauson ( 343 US 306 ) — a case invoked by the dissent (dissenting opn, at 705, 710, 713) for the proposition that petitioner was not coerced by the threat of lost eligibility for the Family Reunion Program — Justice Douglas, in rejecting the Establishment Clause claim, expressly relied upon the total absence of any influence by school authorities on a student’s election to take religious instruction: "The present record indeed tells us that the school authorities are neutral in this regard and do no more than release students whose parents so request. | 1 | 3 |
Abington School Dist. v. Schemppgreen2 sentences1996This view of the reach of the Establishment Clause is supported by respected constitutional law scholars ( see , 4 Rotunda and Nowak, Constitutional Law Substance and Procedure § 21.3, at 453 [2d ed]; see also , Abington School Dist. v Schempp , 374 US 203, 216-217 , supra ). [6] The foregoing opinions of all nine of the Justices in Lee v Weisman dealing with anticoercion as a settled precept of the Establishment Clause either independently or as a prohibited governmental endorsement of religion in violation of the second prong of the three-part Establishment Clause test of Lemon v Kurtzman 1996This view of the reach of the Establishment Clause is supported by respected constitutional law scholars ( see , 4 Rotunda and Nowak, Constitutional Law Substance and Procedure § 21.3, at 453 [2d ed]; see also , Abington School Dist. v Schempp , 374 US 203, 216-217 , supra ). [6] The foregoing opinions of all nine of the Justices in Lee v Weisman dealing with anticoercion as a settled precept of the Establishment Clause either independently or as a prohibited governmental endorsement of religion in violation of the second prong of the three-part Establishment Clause test of Lemon v Kurtzman | 1 | 3 |
Illinois Ex Rel. McCollum v. Board of Ed. of School Dist. No. 71, Champaign Cty.green2 sentences1978Furthermore, while a school board may encourage sectarian religious instruction by planning its schedule of activities to accommodate an outside program of religious instruction, it may not turn over its own classrooms for this purpose during regular school hours (cf. Zorach v Clauson, 343 US 306 , with McCollum v Board of Educ., 333 US 203 ). 1969See, also, McCollum v. Board of Educ. ( 333 U. S. 203, 211-212 ), where the court said: “ A manifestation of such hostility [toward religion] would be at war with our national tradition as embodied in the First Amendment’s guaranty of the free exercise of religion.” Engel v. Vitale ( 370 U. S. 421, 422 ) involved a constitutional attack on the practice of a New York public school district in commencing the school day by reciting the following prayer composed by the State Board of Regents: “ Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, ou | 1 | 3 |
Boston Concessions Group, Inc. v. Criterion Center Corp.green2 sentences2013Corp., 200 AD2d 543 , 545 [1st Dept 1994] [“the establishment of a waiver ... is ordinarily a question of fact”]; see also Peck v Peck, 232 AD2d 540, 540 [2d Dept 1996] [“waiver is not created by negligence, oversight, or thoughtlessness, and cannot be inferred from mere silence”].) Then, too, the court cannot reach the issue of whether the City might be estopped from enforcing the free admission requirement, as the court cannot rule on such issue when the City is not a party to this action. 1995Corp. ( 200 AD2d 543, 545 [1st Dept 1994]), argues that under New York law the establishment of a waiver is a question of fact which precludes summary judgment. | 1 | 2 |
Matter of Bigdoski v. Bausch & Lombgreen1 sentence2026Auth. , 206 AD3d 1418, 1418-1419 [3d Dept 2022]; Matter of Bigdoski v Bausch & Lomb , 197 AD3d 1379, 1380 [3d Dept 2021]). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Brancato v. New York City Tr. Auth.green1 sentence2026Auth. , 206 AD3d 1418, 1418-1419 [3d Dept 2022]; Matter of Bigdoski v Bausch & Lomb , 197 AD3d 1379, 1380 [3d Dept 2021]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. . Shilitanogreen2 sentences2025In rejecting the argument that the mere fact of recantation entitles a defendant to a new trial, this Court made the following generalization about the character of violent crime witnesses: "Bearing in mind that the witnesses to crimes of violence are often of a low and degraded character and that after they have given their testimony they are sometimes [*6]influenced by bribery and other improper considerations, it is evident that the establishment of a rule which left the power to grant a new trial to a defendant to depend upon recantation by such witnesses would be subversive of the proper 2025In rejecting the argument that the mere fact of recantation entitles a defendant to a new trial, this Court made the following generalization about the character of violent crime witnesses: "Bearing in mind that the witnesses to crimes of violence are often of a low and degraded character and that after they have given their testimony they are sometimes [*6]influenced by bribery and other improper considerations, it is evident that the establishment of a rule which left the power to grant a new trial to a defendant to depend upon recantation by such witnesses would be subversive of the proper | 1 | 1 |
Screen Actors Guild-Producers Health Plan v. State of New York Department of Healthgreen1 sentence2024Nonetheless, an agency’s implementation or application of its interpretation of a law, rule, or policy is not itself a rule (see Matter of Stern v Daines, 2009 NY Slip Op 32836[U] , *17, 2009 NY Misc LEXIS 3670 , *25 [Sup Ct, Queens County, Nov. 23, 2009]; Screen Actors Guild- Producers Health Plan v State of New York Dept. of Health, 180 Misc 2d 709, 713 [Sup Ct, N.Y. | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Gaspard v. Queens Party Hall Inc.green2 sentences2023Regarding the establishment of the claim, "whether a compensable accident has occurred is a question of fact to be resolved by the Board and its determination will not be disturbed when supported by substantial evidence" ( Matter of Minichino v Amazon.com DEDC LLC , 204 AD3d 1289 , 1291 [3d Dept 2022] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; see Matter of Gaspard v Queens Party Hall Inc. , 189 AD3d 1880, 1880 [3d Dept 2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 912 [2021]). "[A]n injury is compensable only where it 'arises out of and in the course of the employment' [*2]" ( Matter of Scriven v 2023Regarding the establishment of the claim, "whether a compensable accident has occurred is a question of fact to be resolved by the Board and its determination will not be disturbed when supported by substantial evidence" ( Matter of Minichino v Amazon.com DEDC LLC , 204 AD3d 1289 , 1291 [3d Dept 2022] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; see Matter of Gaspard v Queens Party Hall Inc. , 189 AD3d 1880, 1880 [3d Dept 2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 912 [2021]). "[A]n injury is compensable only where it 'arises out of and in the course of the employment' [*2]" ( Matter of Scriven v | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Scriven v. Davis Ulmer Sprinkler Co.green1 sentence2023Regarding the establishment of the claim, "whether a compensable accident has occurred is a question of fact to be resolved by the Board and its determination will not be disturbed when supported by substantial evidence" ( Matter of Minichino v Amazon.com DEDC LLC , 204 AD3d 1289 , 1291 [3d Dept 2022] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; see Matter of Gaspard v Queens Party Hall Inc. , 189 AD3d 1880, 1880 [3d Dept 2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 912 [2021]). "[A]n injury is compensable only where it 'arises out of and in the course of the employment' [*2]" ( Matter of Scriven v | 1 | 1 |
Claim of McGuinness v. John P. Picone, Inc.green1 sentence2022Although Liberty contested the establishment of the claim, it was precluded from presenting any witnesses from the employer at the hearing because its scheduled witness did not appear ( compare Matter of McGuinness v John P. Picone, Inc. , 36 AD3d 1032, 1032 [3d Dept 2007]). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of McLaughlin v. Sahlen Packing Co., Inc.green1 sentence2021Board." Accordingly, we further discern no abuse of discretion in the Board's denial of the application for review based upon the carrier's noncompliance with 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (2) (ii) ( see Matter of Barber v County of Cortland , 193 AD3d 1202, 1203 [2021]; Matter of McLaughlin v Sahlen Packing Co, Inc. , 192 AD3d 1315, 1316 [2021]). [FN2] The carrier further argues that the Board erred in denying its request — in the first application for review — for a rehearing or reopening of the claim on the issues of employment relationship and coverage, as further development of the record is requir | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Barber v. County of Cortlandgreen1 sentence2021Board." Accordingly, we further discern no abuse of discretion in the Board's denial of the application for review based upon the carrier's noncompliance with 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (2) (ii) ( see Matter of Barber v County of Cortland , 193 AD3d 1202, 1203 [2021]; Matter of McLaughlin v Sahlen Packing Co, Inc. , 192 AD3d 1315, 1316 [2021]). [FN2] The carrier further argues that the Board erred in denying its request — in the first application for review — for a rehearing or reopening of the claim on the issues of employment relationship and coverage, as further development of the record is requir | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Martinez v. New York Producegreen1 sentence2021As the employer's response was patently defective by not providing the date on which the objection or exception was made, we cannot say that the Board abused its discretion in deeming the employer's response to be incomplete ( see Matter of Randell v Christie's Inc. , 183 AD3d at 1060 ; Matter of Fadul v Subcontracting Concepts, LLC , 182 AD3d 973, 974 [2020]; Matter of Martinez v New York Produce , 182 AD3d at 967). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Fadul v. Subcontracting Concepts, LLCgreen1 sentence2021As the employer's response was patently defective by not providing the date on which the objection or exception was made, we cannot say that the Board abused its discretion in deeming the employer's response to be incomplete ( see Matter of Randell v Christie's Inc. , 183 AD3d at 1060 ; Matter of Fadul v Subcontracting Concepts, LLC , 182 AD3d 973, 974 [2020]; Matter of Martinez v New York Produce , 182 AD3d at 967). | 1 | 1 |
Rolleri v. Mastic Beach Ambulance Co.green1 sentence2018As to the establishment of the claim, "[w]hether a compensable accident has occurred presents a question of fact for resolution by the Board and its decision will be upheld when supported by substantial evidence" ( Matter of Rolleri v Mastic Beach Ambulance Co., Inc. , 106 AD3d 1292, 1292 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 865 [2013]; accord Matter of Oathout v Averill Park Cent. | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Oathout v. Averill Park Central Schoolsgreen1 sentence2018Sch. , 142 AD3d 749, 750 [2016]). | 1 | 1 |
Genger v. Gengergreen1 sentence2013(CPLR 1001 [a]; Genger v Genger, 87 AD3d 871, 874 [1st Dept 2011].) In any event, estoppel against the government is “foreclosed ‘in all but the rarest cases.’ ” (Matter of New York State Med. | 1 | 1 |
| Peck v. Peckgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lee v. Weismangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School Districtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sherrill v. Grayco Builders, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Wallace v. Jaffreegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Widmar v. Vincentgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Brownstein v. Brownsteingreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Engel v. Vitale
green
2 sentences1978Similarly, the establishment clause forbids a board of education from composing a prayer to be read in its schools even though students are compelled neither to recite nor hear it (Engel v Vitale, 370 US 421 ). 1969See, also, McCollum v. Board of Educ. ( 333 U. S. 203, 211-212 ), where the court said: “ A manifestation of such hostility [toward religion] would be at war with our national tradition as embodied in the First Amendment’s guaranty of the free exercise of religion.” Engel v. Vitale ( 370 U. S. 421, 422 ) involved a constitutional attack on the practice of a New York public school district in commencing the school day by reciting the following prayer composed by the State Board of Regents: “ Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, ou | 3 | 1969–1978 |
Epperson v. Arkansas
green
2 sentences1986(Compare, Babbitt v Farm Workers, 442 US 289, 301-302 , supra, and Epperson v Arkansas, 393 US 97 , where statutes were attacked facially for unlawfully restricting speech [Babbitt] and as violative of the establishment clause [Epperson]) What plaintiff must prove to establish its constitutional claim as a charity under the established standard (see, Matter of Society for Ethical Culture v Spatt, 51 NY2d 449, 455 , supra) 7 is neither dependent upon nor peculiar to its religious character. 1973Thus, the Supreme Court has held invalid a system of release time for religious instruction conducted on public school premises (McCollum v. Board of Educ., 333 U. S. 203 ), a program of prayers and Bible-reading in the public schools (Abington School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203 ; Engel v. Vitale, 370 U. S. 421 ), and programs of public school instruction favoring a religious view of life (Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U. S. 97 ). | 2 | 1973–1986 |
Walz v. Tax Comm'n of City of New York
green
2 sentences1985Although seemingly contradictory, the two clauses must be interpreted together in that their common purpose is to secure religious freedoms. {See, Choper, The Religion Clauses of the First Amendment: Reconciling the Conflict, 41 U Pitt L Rev 673.) The difficulty faced by courts in interpreting the aforedescribed clauses has been “to find a neutral course between the two Religion Clauses, both of which are cast in absolute terms, and either of which, if expanded to a logical extreme, would tend to clash with the other.” (Walz v Tax Commn., 397 US 664, 668-669 ; see also, Zorach v Clauson, 343 U 1981In support of their contention that the statutory exclusion violates the establishment clause, the tenants cite Walz v Tax Comm. ( 397 US 664 ). | 2 | 1981–1985 |
Schuttinger v. Woodruff
green
2 sentences1957One must assert the validity of Ms claim and the other must in good faith deny all or part of it.” (Schuttinger v. Woodruff, 259 N. Y. 212, 216 ; Eames Vacuum Brake Co. v. Prosser, 157 N. Y. 289, 301 ; Laroe v. Sugar Loaf Dairy Co., 180 N. Y. 367, 371 ; Schnell v. Perlmon, 238 N. Y. 362, 367 .) In the present case however it is apparent that no dispute existed between the parties at the time of the alleged accord and satisfaction. 1933One must assert the validity of his claim and the other must in good faith deny all or part of it.” (Schuttinger v. Woodruff, 259 N. Y. 212, 216 .) The defendant, in its answer, seeks also to offset against the plaintiff rent for the months of March, April and May, 1932, which became due to it from the Decorators Furniture Co., Inc. The difficulty with this is that these rentals matured after the Decorators Furniture Co., Inc., had reassigned the original lease to the plaintiff." This offset, therefore, must fail. | 2 | 1933–1957 |
Beebe v. Board of Sup'rs
neutral
2 sentences1913The same rule was applied in Beebe v. Supervisors of Sullivan Co. ( 64 Hun, 377 ; affd. on opinion below, 142 N. Y. 631 ), I consider the enforcement of this rule absolutely necessary for the protection of the public, certainly to the extent that no obligation as against a municipal corporation can be implied because one official consults with another public official as to the performance of his duties or in relation to the public service. 1912The same rule was applied in Beebe v. Supervisors of Sullivan Co., 64 Hun, 377 , 19 N. Y. | 2 | 1912–1913 |
McMurray & Thomas v. Gifford
green
2 sentences1884How was the defendant misled by her machinations \ These facts were essential to the establishment of a defense, and yet they were not pleaded, and, therefore, could not be proved (McMurray v. Gifford, 5 How. 1884These facts were essential to the establishment of a defense, and yet they were not pleaded, and, therefore, could not be proved (McMurray v. Gifford, 5 How. | 2 | 1884–1884 |
City of Rochester v. . Hart
green
2 sentences1884Pr. 14 ; Lefler v. Field, 52 N. Y. 621 ; Dubois Hermance, 56 Id. 673 ). 1884Pr. 14 ; Lefler v. Field, 52 N. Y. 621 ; Dubois v. Hermance, 56 N. Y. 673 ). | 2 | 1884–1884 |
Finchum v. Colaiacomo
green
1 sentence2022Accordingly, the Board's invocation of the doctrine of laches barring Liberty from disputing coverage will not be disturbed ( see Matter of Finchum v Colaiacomo , 55 AD3d at 1086-1087 ). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Matter of Randell v. Christie's Inc.
green
1 sentence2021As the employer's response was patently defective by not providing the date on which the objection or exception was made, we cannot say that the Board abused its discretion in deeming the employer's response to be incomplete ( see Matter of Randell v Christie's Inc. , 183 AD3d at 1060 ; Matter of Fadul v Subcontracting Concepts, LLC , 182 AD3d 973, 974 [2020]; Matter of Martinez v New York Produce , 182 AD3d at 967). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Bordowitz
green
1 sentence2019People v Bordowitz , 155 Misc 2d 128 [Crim Ct, NY County 1991] [while noting that the defense of justification by necessity has typically been rejected by New York courts where protesters demonstrated against existing enacted policies, the Criminal Court, citing to case law from other jurisdictions, found the defense to be applicable in a case where the defendants, who were each charged with criminally possessing a hypodermic instrument, had contended that they were engaged in a needle exchange program justified by the exigencies created by the AIDS epidemic]; People v Gray , 150 Misc 2d 852 [ | 1 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Gray
green
1 sentence2019People v Bordowitz , 155 Misc 2d 128 [Crim Ct, NY County 1991] [while noting that the defense of justification by necessity has typically been rejected by New York courts where protesters demonstrated against existing enacted policies, the Criminal Court, citing to case law from other jurisdictions, found the defense to be applicable in a case where the defendants, who were each charged with criminally possessing a hypodermic instrument, had contended that they were engaged in a needle exchange program justified by the exigencies created by the AIDS epidemic]; People v Gray , 150 Misc 2d 852 [ | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Hunter Highlands I Condominium v. Yolo Equities Corp. green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Kirschen v. Marino green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Baglio v. St. John's Queens Hospital green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Claim of Losurdo v. Asbestos Free, Inc. green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Boyd v. Coughlin green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Warner v. Orange County Department of Probation green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Investigation & Determination of an Appropriate Unit & Exclusive Representative Hill-Murray Federation of Teachers, St. Paul v. Hill-Murray High School, Maplewood green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Hayes v. Crane Hogan Structural Systems green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Mendelsohn v. A & D Catering Corp. green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| In re the Arbitration between Board of Education & Brentwood Teachers Ass'n green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Mendelsohn v. A & D Catering Corp. green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Denihan v. Denihan green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| De Sapio v. Kohlmeyer green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Van Zandt v. Thompson green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Babbitt v. United Farm Workers National Union green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Society for Ethical Culture v. Spatt green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Scaduto v. State green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Roemer v. Board of Public Works of Md. green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Regan green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Lynch v. Donnelly green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Roe v. Wade red | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Marsh v. La Marco green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
| In re Clear green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| Arciniega v. Freeman green | 1 | 1973–1973 |
| Goldman v. Goldman green | 1 | 1972–1972 |
| Terry v. Ohio green | 1 | 1970–1970 |
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.