51 New York opinions name it 8 courts 1900–2026 2 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. Kinchengreen2 sentences2014Further, we observe that, while defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment was based solely on the denial of his right pursuant to CPL 190.50 (5) (a) to testify before the grand jury, the “claimed deprivation of the [s]tate constitutional right to counsel may be raised on appeal, notwithstanding that the issue was not preserved” before County Court (People v Kinchen, 60 NY2d 772, 773 [1983]). 2014Further, we observe that, while defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment was based solely on the denial of his right pursuant to CPL 190.50 (5) (a) to testify before the grand jury, the “claimed deprivation of the [s]tate constitutional right to counsel may be raised on appeal, notwithstanding that the issue was not preserved” before County Court (People v Kinchen, 60 NY2d 772, 773 [1983]). | 4 | 4 |
People v. Stevensgreen2 sentences2014Here, however, it is uncontroverted that defendant was denied the right to counsel prior to and during the grand jury proceedings, a critical stage of the instant criminal prosecution and, therefore, the forfeiture rule should not be applied (see People v Hunt, 277 AD2d 911, 913 [2000]; People v Stevens, 151 AD2d 704, 705 [1989]). 2014Here, however, it is uncontroverted that defendant was denied the right to counsel prior to and during the grand jury proceedings, a critical stage of the instant criminal prosecution and, therefore, the forfeiture rule should not be applied (see People v Hunt, 277 AD2d 911, 913 [2000]; People v Stevens, 151 AD2d 704, 705 [1989]). | 3 | 4 |
People v. Huntgreen2 sentences2014Here, however, it is uncontroverted that defendant was denied the right to counsel prior to and during the grand jury proceedings, a critical stage of the instant criminal prosecution and, therefore, the forfeiture rule should not be applied (see People v Hunt, 277 AD2d 911, 913 [2000]; People v Stevens, 151 AD2d 704, 705 [1989]). 2014Here, however, it is uncontroverted that defendant was denied the right to counsel prior to and during the grand jury proceedings, a critical stage of the instant criminal prosecution and, therefore, the forfeiture rule should not be applied (see People v Hunt, 277 AD2d 911, 913 [2000]; People v Stevens, 151 AD2d 704, 705 [1989]). | 3 | 3 |
People v. Smithgreen2 sentences2015This omission confirms my belief that it is not part of the judgment of conviction (see Smith, 15 NY3d at 674 [analogous omission from a commitment sheet confirmed the Court’s conclusion that requirements of registration and notice under New York City’s Gun Offender Registration Act * were not part of a sentence]). 2015This omission confirms my belief that it is not part of the judgment of conviction (see Smith, 15 NY3d at 674 [analogous omission from a commitment sheet confirmed the Court’s conclusion that requirements of registration and notice under New York City’s Gun Offender Registration Act * were not part of a sentence]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Iannonegreen2 sentences2018The People concede that the prosecutor did not put the witness to a vote but contend that defendant's guilty plea works a forfeiture of the claim and, alternatively, that his claim is without merit because the prosecutor acted within her discretion to exclude from grand jury consideration what amounts to hearsay testimony. [*3]The State Constitution expressly requires that "[n]o person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime . . . unless on indictment of a grand jury" (NY Const, art I, § 6; see People v Iannone , 45 NY2d 589 , 593 n 3 [1978]). 2018The legislature imposed this requirement to protect "the people of this State from potentially oppressive excesses by the agents{**32 NY3d at 1104} of the government in the exercise of the prosecutorial authority vested in the State" ( Iannone , 45 NY2d at 594 [citation omitted]). | 1 | 2 |
Kristt v. Whelangreen2 sentences2005The employee choice doctrine upheld in Kristt v Whelan ( 4 AD2d 195, 199 [1st Dept 1957], affd without op 5 NY2d 807 [1958]) and in Post v Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith ( 48 NY2d 84 [1979]) presupposes a forfeiture clause of the kind these agreements between Lenel Systems and Smith lack. 2005(Contrast Kristt, 4 AD2d at 199 [forfeiture for competition clause “did not bar plaintiff from other employment'’' 1 because he “had the choice of preserving his rights under the trust by refraining from competition with (his former employer) or risking forfeiture of such rights by exercising his right to compete with (him)”] [emphasis supplied], quoted in Post, 48 NY2d at 88 .) Similarly, in Computer Task Group v Ehlke ( 286 AD2d 973 [4th Dept 2001]), the noncompete provision contained a forfeiture clause but no bar to future employment, thereby giving the former employee the informed choice | 1 | 2 |
People v. Wilkersongreen1 sentence2026The "egregious conduct" subject to a forfeiture analysis has previously involved defendants who "put a knife in the attorney's head" ( id. at 518 ), "brutally assault[]" an attorney ( People v Gilchrist , 239 AD2d 306 , 307 [1st Dept 1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 834 [1997]), or "spit[] at and threaten" multiple attorneys ( People v Wilkerson , 294 AD2d 298, 298 [1st Dept 2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 772 [2002]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Vittenglgreen1 sentence2024County Court expressly advised that defendant would be giving up the "right to remain silent" by pleading guilty, which, for all intents and purposes, amounts to the same as a warning of the forfeiture of the privilege against self-incrimination ( see People v Lopez , 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Vittengl , 203 AD3d 1390, 1392 [3d Dept 2022]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lopezgreen1 sentence2024County Court expressly advised that defendant would be giving up the "right to remain silent" by pleading guilty, which, for all intents and purposes, amounts to the same as a warning of the forfeiture of the privilege against self-incrimination ( see People v Lopez , 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Vittengl , 203 AD3d 1390, 1392 [3d Dept 2022]). | 1 | 1 |
Greenfield v. Philles Records, Inc.green1 sentence2018There having been no final resolution of this dispute within 12 months after the execution of the escrow agreement, the Board established prima facie its entitlement to the escrowed funds in accordance with the agreement's unambiguous forfeiture clause ( see Greenfield v Philles Records , 98 NY2d 562, 569 [2002]; Highbridge House Ogden LLC v Highbridge Entities LLC , 155 AD3d 505 [1st Dept 2017]). | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Moshiergreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Buggswardgreen | 1 | 1 |
Krimstock v. Kellygreen1 sentence2017The defendant’s contention that counsel who represented him during the plea proceedings was ineffective for failing to move for a forfeiture hearing to contest the seizure of one of his vehicles (cf. Krimstock v Kelly, 306 F3d 40, 43 [2002]) is not properly before this Court. | 1 | 1 |
People v. MAHER (KENNETH)green1 sentence2017“This forfeiture rule ... is based on sound public policy meant to prevent the defendant from taking advantage of his or her own wrongdoing and to protect the integrity of the proceedings by deterring the defendant from acting on the strong incentive to tamper with adverse witnesses” (People v Smart, 23 NY3d at 220 [citation omitted]; see People v Dubarry, 25 NY3d 161, 174 [2015]; People v Maher, 89 NY2d 456, 461 [1997]). | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Silentgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Smartgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Chestnutgreen | 1 | 1 |
The People v. Darius Dubarrygreen1 sentence2017“This forfeiture rule ... is based on sound public policy meant to prevent the defendant from taking advantage of his or her own wrongdoing and to protect the integrity of the proceedings by deterring the defendant from acting on the strong incentive to tamper with adverse witnesses” (People v Smart, 23 NY3d at 220 [citation omitted]; see People v Dubarry, 25 NY3d 161, 174 [2015]; People v Maher, 89 NY2d 456, 461 [1997]). | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Castillogreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Reynoldsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Arroyavegreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Fernandezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Jimenezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Charlesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. McDermottgreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
City of Buffalo v. Hanna Furnace Corp.
neutral
2 sentences1983(See Hudson v Matter, 219 App Div 252 ; De Witt v Patterson, 282 App Div 827 ; Ruiz v Crespi, 46 AD2d 44 .) However, the so-called forfeiture rule (see 62 NY Jur, Vendor and Purchaser, § 137) also has deep roots in our jurisprudence. 1981More recent New York cases have applied equitable principles to avoid forfeiture (see Hudson v Matter, 219 App Div 252 , supra; De Witt v Patterson, 282 App Div 827 ; Ruiz v Crespi, 46 AD2d 44 ; Becker v Rothschild, 141 NYS 528 ; Naimoli v Massa, 81 Misc 2d 431 ). | 3 | 1956–1983 |
Kristt v. Whelan
green
2 sentences2005The employee choice doctrine upheld in Kristt v Whelan ( 4 AD2d 195, 199 [1st Dept 1957], affd without op 5 NY2d 807 [1958]) and in Post v Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith ( 48 NY2d 84 [1979]) presupposes a forfeiture clause of the kind these agreements between Lenel Systems and Smith lack. 2005The employee choice doctrine upheld in Kristt v Whelan ( 4 AD2d 195, 199 [1st Dept 1957], affd without op 5 NY2d 807 [1958]) and in Post v Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith ( 48 NY2d 84 [1979]) presupposes a forfeiture clause of the kind these agreements between Lenel Systems and Smith lack. | 2 | 1978–2005 |
People v. Petgen
green
2 sentences2002“Likewise such a plea, entered on advice of competent counsel, constitutes a forfeiture of a claim of prior ineffective assistance of counsel on the part of a former attorney where the full measure of the asserted derelictions of the first attorney were known to the second attorney who nonetheless counseled acceptance of the plea.” (People v Petgen, 55 NY2d 529, 532 .) Defendant’s constitutional challenge to the procedure under which he was sentenced as a second violent felony offender is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit (see, People v Rosen, 96 NY2d 329 , c 2000We note that a plea, “entered on advice of competent counsel, constitutes a forfeiture of a claim of prior ineffective assistance of counsel on the part of a former attorney where the full measure of the asserted derelictions of the first attorney were known to the second attorney who nonetheless counseled acceptance of the plea” (People v Petgen, 55 NY2d 529, 532 , rearg denied 57 NY2d 674 ; People v Ireland, 274 AD2d 743 ). | 2 | 2000–2002 |
People v. Lonergan
green
2 sentences2000Where, however, a defendant was deprived of his right to assistance of counsel at the Grand Jury proceeding, the forfeiture rule does not apply (see, People v Stevens, 151 AD2d 704, 705 ; see also, People v Jiminez, 180 AD2d 757, 757-758 ; People v Johnston, 178 AD2d 550 ; People v Lincoln, 80 AD2d 877 ). 1989Moreover, although a defendant, by pleading guilty, as a general rule, forfeits appellate review of any claim that his right to testify before a Grand Jury was violated (see, People v Ferrara, 99 AD2d 257 ), under the circumstances of this case, in which the defendant was deprived of his constitutional right to assistance of counsel at the Grand Jury proceedings, the forfeiture rule does not apply (see, People v Ferrara, supra; People v Lincoln, supra). | 2 | 1989–2000 |
Ruiz v. Crespi
neutral
2 sentences1983(See Hudson v Matter, 219 App Div 252 ; De Witt v Patterson, 282 App Div 827 ; Ruiz v Crespi, 46 AD2d 44 .) However, the so-called forfeiture rule (see 62 NY Jur, Vendor and Purchaser, § 137) also has deep roots in our jurisprudence. 1981More recent New York cases have applied equitable principles to avoid forfeiture (see Hudson v Matter, 219 App Div 252 , supra; De Witt v Patterson, 282 App Div 827 ; Ruiz v Crespi, 46 AD2d 44 ; Becker v Rothschild, 141 NYS 528 ; Naimoli v Massa, 81 Misc 2d 431 ). | 2 | 1981–1983 |
Friedland v. Argentor Holding Corporation
neutral
2 sentences1983(See Havens v Patterson, 43 NY 218 ; Page v McDonnell, 55 NY 299 ; Lawrence v Miller, 86 NY 131 ; Friedland v Argentor Holding Corp., 242 NY 532 .) Plaintiffs are entitled to an order of ejectment. 1981The so-called forfeiture rule (see 62 NY Jur, Vendor & Purchaser, § 137) is drawn from a line of factually distinguishable pre-World War I cases involving primarily down payments (see, e.g., Havens v Patterson, 43 NY 218 ; Page v McDonnell, 55 NY 299 ; Lawrence v Miller, 86 NY 131 ; Steinhardt v Baker, 163 NY 410 ; Coyne v Valley Stream Realty Co., 219 NY 609 ; Fried- land v Argentor Holding Corp., 242 NY 532 ). | 2 | 1981–1983 |
Lawrence v. . Miller
green
2 sentences1983(See Havens v Patterson, 43 NY 218 ; Page v McDonnell, 55 NY 299 ; Lawrence v Miller, 86 NY 131 ; Friedland v Argentor Holding Corp., 242 NY 532 .) Plaintiffs are entitled to an order of ejectment. 1981The so-called forfeiture rule (see 62 NY Jur, Vendor & Purchaser, § 137) is drawn from a line of factually distinguishable pre-World War I cases involving primarily down payments (see, e.g., Havens v Patterson, 43 NY 218 ; Page v McDonnell, 55 NY 299 ; Lawrence v Miller, 86 NY 131 ; Steinhardt v Baker, 163 NY 410 ; Coyne v Valley Stream Realty Co., 219 NY 609 ; Fried- land v Argentor Holding Corp., 242 NY 532 ). | 2 | 1981–1983 |
Page v. . McDonnell
neutral
2 sentences1983(See Havens v Patterson, 43 NY 218 ; Page v McDonnell, 55 NY 299 ; Lawrence v Miller, 86 NY 131 ; Friedland v Argentor Holding Corp., 242 NY 532 .) Plaintiffs are entitled to an order of ejectment. 1981The so-called forfeiture rule (see 62 NY Jur, Vendor & Purchaser, § 137) is drawn from a line of factually distinguishable pre-World War I cases involving primarily down payments (see, e.g., Havens v Patterson, 43 NY 218 ; Page v McDonnell, 55 NY 299 ; Lawrence v Miller, 86 NY 131 ; Steinhardt v Baker, 163 NY 410 ; Coyne v Valley Stream Realty Co., 219 NY 609 ; Fried- land v Argentor Holding Corp., 242 NY 532 ). | 2 | 1981–1983 |
Havens v. . Patterson
neutral
2 sentences1983(See Havens v Patterson, 43 NY 218 ; Page v McDonnell, 55 NY 299 ; Lawrence v Miller, 86 NY 131 ; Friedland v Argentor Holding Corp., 242 NY 532 .) Plaintiffs are entitled to an order of ejectment. 1981The so-called forfeiture rule (see 62 NY Jur, Vendor & Purchaser, § 137) is drawn from a line of factually distinguishable pre-World War I cases involving primarily down payments (see, e.g., Havens v Patterson, 43 NY 218 ; Page v McDonnell, 55 NY 299 ; Lawrence v Miller, 86 NY 131 ; Steinhardt v Baker, 163 NY 410 ; Coyne v Valley Stream Realty Co., 219 NY 609 ; Fried- land v Argentor Holding Corp., 242 NY 532 ). | 2 | 1981–1983 |
Hudson v. Matter
neutral
2 sentences1983(See Hudson v Matter, 219 App Div 252 ; De Witt v Patterson, 282 App Div 827 ; Ruiz v Crespi, 46 AD2d 44 .) However, the so-called forfeiture rule (see 62 NY Jur, Vendor and Purchaser, § 137) also has deep roots in our jurisprudence. 1981More recent New York cases have applied equitable principles to avoid forfeiture (see Hudson v Matter, 219 App Div 252 , supra; De Witt v Patterson, 282 App Div 827 ; Ruiz v Crespi, 46 AD2d 44 ; Becker v Rothschild, 141 NYS 528 ; Naimoli v Massa, 81 Misc 2d 431 ). | 2 | 1981–1983 |
Barnett v. Sussman
green
2 sentences1956(Cf. De Witt v. Patter son, 282 App. Div. 827 .) In Barnett v. Sussman ( 116 App. Div. 859 ) the Appellate Division, Second Department, observed, at page 860: ‘‘ The last payment was of $10 in September, 1903. 1910(Barnett v. Sussman, 116 App. Div. 859 .) There is no pretense that any notice was given. | 2 | 1910–1956 |
People v. Smith
green
1 sentence2026The "egregious conduct" subject to a forfeiture analysis has previously involved defendants who "put a knife in the attorney's head" ( id. at 518 ), "brutally assault[]" an attorney ( People v Gilchrist , 239 AD2d 306 , 307 [1st Dept 1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 834 [1997]), or "spit[] at and threaten" multiple attorneys ( People v Wilkerson , 294 AD2d 298, 298 [1st Dept 2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 772 [2002]). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Gilchrist
green
1 sentence2026The "egregious conduct" subject to a forfeiture analysis has previously involved defendants who "put a knife in the attorney's head" ( id. at 518 ), "brutally assault[]" an attorney ( People v Gilchrist , 239 AD2d 306 , 307 [1st Dept 1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 834 [1997]), or "spit[] at and threaten" multiple attorneys ( People v Wilkerson , 294 AD2d 298, 298 [1st Dept 2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 772 [2002]). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
United States v. Wayne Gaskin, AKA \Atiba
green
1 sentence2020However, respondents did not proffer evidence of petitioner's previous violation at the hearing, which pre-dated findings by federal district courts limiting the scope of the seizure provision to the well-established forfeiture exception ( see Harrell v City of New York , 138 F Supp 3d 479, 490-495 [SD NY 2015], citing Gaskin , 364 F3d at 458 ; see also DeCastro v City of New York , 278 F Supp 3d 753, 769-772 [SD NY 2017]). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Highbridge House Ogden LLC v. Highbridge Entities LLC
neutral
1 sentence2018There having been no final resolution of this dispute within 12 months after the execution of the escrow agreement, the Board established prima facie its entitlement to the escrowed funds in accordance with the agreement's unambiguous forfeiture clause ( see Greenfield v Philles Records , 98 NY2d 562, 569 [2002]; Highbridge House Ogden LLC v Highbridge Entities LLC , 155 AD3d 505 [1st Dept 2017]). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Manragh
green
1 sentence2018The legislature imposed this requirement to protect "the people of this State from potentially oppressive excesses by the agents{**32 NY3d at 1104} of the government in the exercise of the prosecutorial authority vested in the State" ( Iannone , 45 NY2d at 594 [citation omitted]). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| People v. Burton green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| People v. Donovan neutral | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| People v. Cotto green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| People v. Plunkett green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Carroll
green
1 sentence2017“Recognizing the surreptitious nature of witness tampering and that a defendant engaging in such conduct will rarely do so openly, resorting instead to subterfuge, the court can rely on and the prosecution can use circumstantial evidence in making the requisite determination” (People v Chestnut, 149 AD3d 772, 773 [2017] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied 29 NY3d 1077 [2017]; see People v Smart, 23 NY3d at 220-221 ; People v Cotto, 92 NY2d at 76-77 ). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Phansalkar v. Andersen Weinroth & Co. green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| People v. Geraci green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Thornton v. Baron green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| H.O. Realty Corp. v. State of New York Division of Housing green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Grimm v. State green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| People v. Thomas green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| People v. Lee green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Weiner v. Diebold Group, Inc. green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Computer Task Group, Inc. v. Ehlke green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Post v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Rosewood Property Co. v. Board of Assessment Review for Town of Hamburg neutral | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| People v. Hansen green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Rosen v. New York neutral | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| People v. Rosen green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| People v. Johnston green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| People v. Ireland green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| New York State Department of Taxation & Finance v. Bramhall neutral | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| People v. Farinaro green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| People v. Sanders green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.