51 New York opinions name it 4 courts 1978–2026 21 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 |
|---|---|---|
The People v. Gary Wrightgreen2 sentences2025We review "the summary denial of a CPL article 440 motion under an abuse of discretion standard" ( People v Wright , 27 NY3d 516, 520 [2016]; see People v Jones , 24 NY3d 623, 630 [2014]). 2025We review "the summary denial of a CPL article 440 motion under an abuse of discretion standard" ( People v Wright , 27 NY3d 516, 520 [2016]; see People v Jones , 24 NY3d 623, 630 [2014]). | 6 | 6 |
The People v. Clifford Jonesgreen2 sentences2025We review "the summary denial of a CPL article 440 motion under an abuse of discretion standard" ( People v Wright , 27 NY3d 516, 520 [2016]; see People v Jones , 24 NY3d 623, 630 [2014]). 2025We review "the summary denial of a CPL article 440 motion under an abuse of discretion standard" ( People v Wright , 27 NY3d 516, 520 [2016]; see People v Jones , 24 NY3d 623, 630 [2014]). | 3 | 3 |
People v. Gonzalezgreen2 sentences2014The People did not dispute that defendant’s request for the missing witness charge was timely or that he demonstrated prima facie entitlement to the charge by establishing that the victim was knowledgeable about a material issue in the case and could be expected to give noncumulative testimony favorable to the prosecution (see People v Vasquez, 76 NY2d 722, 723 [1990]; People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 427-428 [1986]). 2014The People did not dispute that defendant’s request for the missing witness charge was timely or that he demonstrated prima facie entitlement to the charge by establishing that the victim was knowledgeable about a material issue in the case and could be expected to give noncumulative testimony favorable to the prosecution (see People v Vasquez, 76 NY2d 722, 723 [1990]; People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 427-428 [1986]). | 3 | 3 |
People v. Vasquezgreen2 sentences2014The People did not dispute that defendant’s request for the missing witness charge was timely or that he demonstrated prima facie entitlement to the charge by establishing that the victim was knowledgeable about a material issue in the case and could be expected to give noncumulative testimony favorable to the prosecution (see People v Vasquez, 76 NY2d 722, 723 [1990]; People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 427-428 [1986]). 2014The People did not dispute that defendant’s request for the missing witness charge was timely or that he demonstrated prima facie entitlement to the charge by establishing that the victim was knowledgeable about a material issue in the case and could be expected to give noncumulative testimony favorable to the prosecution (see People v Vasquez, 76 NY2d 722, 723 [1990]; People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 427-428 [1986]). | 3 | 3 |
People v. Colemangreen2 sentences2025Abuse of discretion is, for example, the standard appellate courts use in reviewing a challenge to the admission or exclusion of evidence at trial ( see id. ), and a reversal or modification based on such abuse of discretion is one made on the law ( see People v Mawhiney , 220 AD3d 1055, 1060 [3d Dept 2023]; People v Singleton , 139 AD3d 208, 210, 215 [1st Dept 2016]; People v Salim , 96 AD3d 1484, 1485 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1028 [2012]; see also CPL 470.15 [4] [a]). 2025Abuse of discretion is, for example, the standard appellate courts use in reviewing a challenge to the admission or exclusion of evidence at trial ( see id. ), and a reversal or modification based on such abuse of discretion is one made on the law ( see People v Mawhiney , 220 AD3d 1055 , 1060 [3d Dept 2023]; People v Singleton , 139 AD3d 208, 210, 215 [1st Dept 2016]; People v Salim , 96 AD3d 1484, 1485 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1028 [2012]; see also CPL 470.15 [4] [a]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Singletongreen2 sentences2025Abuse of discretion is, for example, the standard appellate courts use in reviewing a challenge to the admission or exclusion of evidence at trial ( see id. ), and a reversal or modification based on such abuse of discretion is one made on the law ( see People v Mawhiney , 220 AD3d 1055, 1060 [3d Dept 2023]; People v Singleton , 139 AD3d 208, 210, 215 [1st Dept 2016]; People v Salim , 96 AD3d 1484, 1485 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1028 [2012]; see also CPL 470.15 [4] [a]). 2025Abuse of discretion is, for example, the standard appellate courts use in reviewing a challenge to the admission or exclusion of evidence at trial ( see id. ), and a reversal or modification based on such abuse of discretion is one made on the law ( see People v Mawhiney , 220 AD3d 1055 , 1060 [3d Dept 2023]; People v Singleton , 139 AD3d 208, 210, 215 [1st Dept 2016]; People v Salim , 96 AD3d 1484, 1485 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1028 [2012]; see also CPL 470.15 [4] [a]). | 2 | 2 |
State v. John S.green2 sentences2025Appellate courts apply an abuse of discretion standard in reviewing rulings that are inherently unsusceptible to broad generalization and therefore unamenable to clear rules for lower courts—where the law accordingly commits certain trial-level determinations to a court's discretion to begin with ( see Matter of State of New York v John S. , 23 NY3d 326, 344 [2014]). 2025Appellate courts apply an abuse of discretion standard in reviewing rulings that are inherently unsusceptible to broad generalization and therefore unamenable to clear rules for lower courts—where the law accordingly commits certain trial-level determinations to a court's discretion to begin with ( see Matter of State of New York v John S. , 23 NY3d 326, 344 [2014]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Alcantaragreen2 sentences2024A trial court's ruling on a motion to vacate a note of issue is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard ( see Matos v City of New York , 154 AD3d 532, 533 [1st Dept 2017]). 2024A trial court's ruling on a motion to vacate a note of issue is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard ( see Matos v City of New York , 154 AD3d 532, 533 [1st Dept 2017]). | 2 | 2 |
Matter of Harley K. v. Brittany J.green2 sentences2024The mother appeals. [FN2] Beginning with the mother's violation petition, we review Family Court's determination under an abuse of discretion standard with deference to its credibility assessments ( see Matter of Harley K. v Brittany J. , 189 AD3d 1738, 1739 [3d Dept 2020]; Matter of Carl KK. v Michelle JJ. , 175 AD3d 1627 , 1628 [3d Dept 2019]). 2024The mother appeals. [FN2] Beginning with the mother's violation petition, we review Family Court's determination under an abuse of discretion standard with deference to its credibility assessments ( see Matter of Harley K. v Brittany J. , 189 AD3d 1738, 1739 [3d Dept 2020]; Matter of Carl KK. v Michelle JJ. , 175 AD3d 1627 , 1628 [3d Dept 2019]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Lanegreen2 sentences2024CPL 200.20 (2) (c) provides for discretionary consolidation of offenses "defined by the same or similar statutory provisions" (CPL 200.20 [2] [c]; see People v Lane , 56 NY2d 1, 7 [1982]). 2024CPL 200.20 (2) (c) provides for discretionary consolidation of offenses "defined by the same or similar statutory provisions" (CPL 200.20 [2] [c]; see People v Lane , 56 NY2d 1, 7 [1982]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. MacAnagreen2 sentences2009The decision whether to give such charge is reviewed on appeal under the abuse of discretion standard (see People v Savinon, 100 NY2d at 197 ; People v Macana, 84 NY2d 173, 179-180 [1994]). 2003We review a trial court’s decision whether to grant a missing witness charge on an abuse of discretion standard (see People v Macana, 84 NY2d 173, 179-180 [1994]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Diazgreen2 sentences2025One majority memorandum concluded that the sentence was "not excessive under the circumstances" and added that the "court did not abuse its discretion" ( Diaz , 177 AD2d at 407), and concurrences in the other two urged the application of an abuse of discretion standard ( see Delgado , 178 AD2d at 276; Ramsey , 178 AD2d at 270). 2025One majority memorandum concluded that the sentence was "not excessive under the circumstances" and added that the "court did not abuse its discretion" ( Diaz , 177 AD2d at 407 ), and concurrences in the other two urged the application of an abuse of discretion standard ( see Delgado , 178 AD2d at 276 ; Ramsey , 178 AD2d at 270 ). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Ramseygreen2 sentences2025One majority memorandum concluded that the sentence was "not excessive under the circumstances" and added that the "court did not abuse its discretion" ( Diaz , 177 AD2d at 407), and concurrences in the other two urged the application of an abuse of discretion standard ( see Delgado , 178 AD2d at 276; Ramsey , 178 AD2d at 270). 2025One majority memorandum concluded that the sentence was "not excessive under the circumstances" and added that the "court did not abuse its discretion" ( Diaz , 177 AD2d at 407 ), and concurrences in the other two urged the application of an abuse of discretion standard ( see Delgado , 178 AD2d at 276 ; Ramsey , 178 AD2d at 270 ). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Delgadogreen2 sentences2025One majority memorandum concluded that the sentence was "not excessive under the circumstances" and added that the "court did not abuse its discretion" ( Diaz , 177 AD2d at 407), and concurrences in the other two urged the application of an abuse of discretion standard ( see Delgado , 178 AD2d at 276; Ramsey , 178 AD2d at 270). 2025One majority memorandum concluded that the sentence was "not excessive under the circumstances" and added that the "court did not abuse its discretion" ( Diaz , 177 AD2d at 407 ), and concurrences in the other two urged the application of an abuse of discretion standard ( see Delgado , 178 AD2d at 276 ; Ramsey , 178 AD2d at 270 ). | 1 | 2 |
Petry v. Gillongreen1 sentence2026Although a determination on a motion for leave to amend is generally subject to an abuse of discretion standard (<i>see</i> <i>Petry v Gillon</i>,<i></i> 199 AD3d 1277, 1280 [3d Dept 2021]; <i>Matter of Perkins v Town of Dryden Planning Bd.</i>,<i></i> 172 AD3d 1695 , 1697 [3d Dept 2019]), Supreme Court did not engage in any analysis with respect to the merits of plaintiffs' cross-motion seeking leave to amend. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hakesgreen2 sentences2026Pursuant to this abuse of discretion standard, "findings made by" the lower courts that "are supported in the record" are "beyond the scope of our review" ( People v Angela VV. , 44 NY3d 1061, 1063 [2025]), provided that the sentencing court "acted within the parameters of the probationary sentencing structure" ( People v Hakes , 32 NY3d 624, 628 [2018], quoting Letterlough , 86 NY2d at 265). 2026Pursuant to this abuse of discretion standard, "findings made by" the lower courts that "are supported in the record" are "beyond the scope of our review" ( People v Angela VV. , 44 NY3d 1061 , 1063 [2025]), provided that the sentencing court "acted within the parameters of the probationary sentencing structure" ( People v Hakes , 32 NY3d 624, 628 [2018], quoting Letterlough , 86 NY2d at 265 ). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Letterloughgreen2 sentences2026Pursuant to this abuse of discretion standard, "findings made by" the lower courts that "are supported in the record" are "beyond the scope of our review" ( People v Angela VV. , 44 NY3d 1061, 1063 [2025]), provided that the sentencing court "acted within the parameters of the probationary sentencing structure" ( People v Hakes , 32 NY3d 624, 628 [2018], quoting Letterlough , 86 NY2d at 265). 2026Pursuant to this abuse of discretion standard, "findings made by" the lower courts that "are supported in the record" are "beyond the scope of our review" ( People v Angela VV. , 44 NY3d 1061 , 1063 [2025]), provided that the sentencing court "acted within the parameters of the probationary sentencing structure" ( People v Hakes , 32 NY3d 624, 628 [2018], quoting Letterlough , 86 NY2d at 265 ). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Cardwellgreen2 sentences2025Whether to grant severance is a question ordinarily left to the discretion of the trial judge, subject to review under an abuse of discretion standard ( see People v Cardwell , 78 NY2d 996, 997 [1991]; People v Bornholdt , 33 NY2d 75, 87 [1973]). 2025Whether to grant severance is a question ordinarily left to the discretion of the trial judge, subject to review under an abuse of discretion standard ( see People v Cardwell , 78 NY2d 996, 997 [1991]; People v Bornholdt , 33 NY2d 75, 87 [1973]). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Prisoners' Legal Servs. of N.Y. v. New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervisiongreen2 sentences2025State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision , 42 NY3d 936, 937 [2024]). 2025State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision , 42 NY3d 936, 937 [2024]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bornholdtgreen2 sentences2025Whether to grant severance is a question ordinarily left to the discretion of the trial judge, subject to review under an abuse of discretion standard ( see People v Cardwell , 78 NY2d 996, 997 [1991]; People v Bornholdt , 33 NY2d 75, 87 [1973]). 2025Whether to grant severance is a question ordinarily left to the discretion of the trial judge, subject to review under an abuse of discretion standard ( see People v Cardwell , 78 NY2d 996, 997 [1991]; People v Bornholdt , 33 NY2d 75, 87 [1973]). | 1 | 1 |
Kransteuber v. Scheyergreen2 sentences2025In affirming, we began with the appropriate standard, explaining that the "intermediate appellate court has broad, plenary power to modify a sentence that is unduly harsh or severe under the circumstances," and that this "sentence-review power may be exercised, if the interest of justice warrants, without deference to the sentencing court" ( Delgado , 80 NY2d at 783). 2025In affirming, we began with the appropriate standard, explaining that the "intermediate appellate court has broad, plenary power to modify a sentence that is unduly harsh or severe under the circumstances," and that this "sentence-review power may be exercised, if the interest of justice warrants, without deference to the sentencing court" ( Delgado , 80 NY2d at 783 ). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bryantgreen1 sentence2023Accordingly, we would reverse the judgment of conviction and remit the matter for separate trials relative to each victim's death ( see People v Bryant , 200 AD3d 1483, 1490 [3d Dept 2021], [*11] appeal dismissed 38 NY3d 1158 [2022]). | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Branchgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Burris v. Olcottgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Claim of Rusyniak v. Syracuse Flying School, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Matter of Miller v. MO Maier Ltd.green | 1 | 1 |
| In re Tiara B.green | 1 | 1 |
| Matter of Kimberly S. K. (Kimberly K.)green | 1 | 1 |
| Shouse v. Lyonsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| T.M. v. J.K.green | 1 | 1 |
| Riches v. New York City Councilgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Watergate II Apartments v. Buffalo Sewer Authoritygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Marx v. Akersgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Salcegreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Heyligergreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Quinonesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Crimminsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Holbrook v. Flynngreen | 1 | 1 |
| D.F. v. Carriongreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Williamsgreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Savinon
green
2 sentences2019“We review a trial court’s decision whether to grant a missing witness charge on an abuse of discretion standard” (Savinon, 100 NY2d at 197 ). 2014A trial court’s decision of whether to grant the charge is reviewable on an abuse of discretion standard (see People v Savinon, 100 NY2d at 197 ; People v Onyia, 70 AD3d at 1204 ). | 5 | 2009–2019 |
People v. Onyia
green
2 sentences2014A trial court’s decision of whether to grant the charge is reviewable on an abuse of discretion standard (see People v Savinon, 100 NY2d at 197 ; People v Onyia, 70 AD3d at 1204 ). 2014A trial court’s decision of whether to grant the charge is reviewable on an abuse of discretion standard (see People v Savinon, 100 NY2d at 197 ; People v Onyia, 70 AD3d at 1204 ). | 3 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Hale
green
2 sentences2026In People v Hale (93 NY2d 454 [1999]), we upheld the imposition of a consent-to-search provision as a valid exercise of the sentencing court's authority. 2026In People v Hale ( 93 NY2d 454 [1999]), we upheld the imposition of a consent-to-search provision as a valid exercise of the sentencing court's authority. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Delgado
green
2 sentences2025In affirming, we began with the appropriate standard, explaining that the "intermediate appellate court has broad, plenary power to modify a sentence that is unduly harsh or severe under the circumstances," and that this "sentence-review power may be exercised, if the interest of justice warrants, without deference to the sentencing court" ( Delgado , 80 NY2d at 783 ). 2025Having articulated a standard of review entirely incompatible with an abuse of discretion standard, we nonetheless concluded that the Appellate Division "did not misapprehend its power in these cases" inasmuch as we "read the Appellate Division's statements that the sentencing courts did not abuse their discretion to mean that the Appellate Division did not find the sentences unduly harsh or severe under the circumstances" ( id. ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Brisman
green
1 sentence2025CPL 470.15 and 470.20, which have remained unchanged since the statute's enactment, empower the intermediate appellate courts to modify, "as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice," a sentence that, "though legal, was unduly harsh or severe" (CPL 470.15 [6] [b]) {**43 NY3d at 327}and provide that, upon doing so, "the court must itself impose some legally authorized lesser sentence" (CPL 470.20 [6]). [FN2] An abuse of discretion standard is inconsistent with the CPL, which commits excessive sentence determinations purely to the Appellate Division's interest of justice jurisdiction. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Forman v. Henkin
green
1 sentence2025Joseph Clerk of the Court Footnotes Footnote 1: As the defendant limits his contention to arguing that the Supreme Court "abused" its discretion as a matter of law in granting the People's motion pursuant to CPL 722.23(1) to prevent removal of this action to Family Court, and does not argue that the court improvidently exercised its discretion, we apply the abuse of discretion standard of review ( see generally People v Cook , 34 NY3d 412 , 423; Forman v Henkin , 30 NY3d 656 , 662 n 3). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Matter of Mitchell v. Wastequip, Inc.
green
1 sentence2023Our limited review of the Board's decision to rehear or reopen a claim is under an abuse of discretion standard ( see Matter of Mitchell v Wastequip, Inc. , 203 AD3d at 1291 ; Matter of Miller v Mo Maier Ltd. , 201 AD3d 1101, 1103 [3d Dept 2022]; Matter of Mejia v Drake Group, LLC , 123 AD3d 1361 , 1362 [3d Dept 2014]; Matter of Burris v Olcott , 95 AD3d 1522, 1523 [3d Dept 2012]; see also Matter of Rusyniak v Syracuse Flying School , 37 NY2d 384, 390-391 [1975]). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Claim of Mejia v. Drake Group, LLC
green
1 sentence2023Our limited review of the Board's decision to rehear or reopen a claim is under an abuse of discretion standard ( see Matter of Mitchell v Wastequip, Inc. , 203 AD3d at 1291 ; Matter of Miller v Mo Maier Ltd. , 201 AD3d 1101, 1103 [3d Dept 2022]; Matter of Mejia v Drake Group, LLC , 123 AD3d 1361 , 1362 [3d Dept 2014]; Matter of Burris v Olcott , 95 AD3d 1522, 1523 [3d Dept 2012]; see also Matter of Rusyniak v Syracuse Flying School , 37 NY2d 384, 390-391 [1975]). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| People v. Dogan green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Hubbard v. Barber green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| People v. Alston green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Matter of Jones v. Venettozzi green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Marx v. Akers neutral | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| People v. Bedessie green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| United States v. David Thai, Lan Ngoc Tran, Minh Do, Jimmy Nguyen, Hoang Huy Ngo, Quang Van Nguyen, and Lv Hong, A/K/A \l.v. Hong\"" green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| People v. Samandarov green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| People v. Schulz green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Brian L. v. Administration for Children's Services green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| People v. Crimmins green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| In re Kacey H. green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation v. Insulation Distributors, Inc. neutral | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Simmons v. Simmons green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Carpenter v. Carpenter green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Roffey v. Roffey green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| People v. Moissett green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| People v. Patrick green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| People v. Thompson green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| People v. Gonzalez green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| People v. Fiumefreddo green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| North Carolina v. Alford green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Parkin v. Cornell University, Inc. green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Hensley v. Eckerhart green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| People v. Buszak neutral | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Thomasel v. Perales green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Van Wagner Advertising Corp. v. S & M Enterprises green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Melone v. State of New York Education Department green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Viloria v. Sobol neutral | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Jacques v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Epstein v. Epstein neutral | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.