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.
50 New York opinions name it 5 courts 1981–2026 9 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. Leroy Carvergreen2 sentences2022Defendant has not shown that counsel's failure to move to reopen the hearing was objectively unreasonable, that the motion would have been granted, that a reopened hearing was likely to have resulted in suppression of any evidence, or that such suppression would have affected the outcome of the case ( see People v Carver , 27 NY3d 418, 420-421 [2016]). 2022Defendant has not shown that counsel's failure to move to reopen the hearing was objectively unreasonable, that the motion would have been granted, that a reopened hearing was likely to have resulted in suppression of any evidence, or that such suppression would have affected the outcome of the case ( see People v Carver , 27 NY3d 418, 420-421 [2016]). | 5 | 5 |
People v. Evansgreen2 sentences2014Furthermore, even if a motion to reopen the Wade hearing had been made, and granted, the record shows that a reopened hearing would not have resulted in a different ruling (see People v Evans, 16 NY3d 571, 576 [2011], cert denied 565 US —, 132 S Ct 325 [2011]; People v Charles, 152 AD2d 593 [1989]). 2014Furthermore, even if a motion to reopen the Wade hearing had been made, and granted, the record shows that a reopened hearing would not have resulted in a different ruling (see People v Evans, 16 NY3d 571, 576 [2011], cert denied 565 US —, 132 S Ct 325 [2011]; People v Charles, 152 AD2d 593 [1989]). | 3 | 3 |
People v. Havelkagreen2 sentences2013In People v Havelka ( 45 NY2d 636 [1978]), we held that the People, if afforded a full and fair opportunity to present evidence of the dispositive issues at a suppression hearing, are not entitled to a remand after appeal for a reopened hearing. 2012Contrary to defendant’s argument, the principle set forth in People v Havelka ( 45 NY2d 636 [1978]) does not preclude a reopened hearing. “[T]here is no claim here that the People’s proof at the suppression hearing was insufficient; the claim was that there was an error at the hearing — that, because of the nondisclosure of Brady material, defendant did not have a fair chance to refute the People’s case” (People v Williams, 7 NY3d 15, 21 [2006]). | 2 | 7 |
People v. Baldigreen2 sentences2014The evidence and the law, viewed in totality and as of the time of representation, reveal that trial counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). 2014The evidence and the law, viewed in totality and as of the time of representation, reveal that trial counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Danielsongreen2 sentences2022We reject defendant's argument that one of his second-degree robbery convictions, requiring proof of physical injury (Penal Law § 160.10[2][a]) was against the weight of the evidence ( People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). 2022We reject defendant's argument that one of his second-degree robbery convictions, requiring proof of physical injury (Penal Law § 160.10[2][a]) was against the weight of the evidence ( People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2012Contrary to defendant’s argument, the principle set forth in People v Havelka ( 45 NY2d 636 [1978]) does not preclude a reopened hearing. “[T]here is no claim here that the People’s proof at the suppression hearing was insufficient; the claim was that there was an error at the hearing — that, because of the nondisclosure of Brady material, defendant did not have a fair chance to refute the People’s case” (People v Williams, 7 NY3d 15, 21 [2006]). 2012Contrary to defendant’s argument, the principle set forth in People v Havelka ( 45 NY2d 636 [1978]) does not preclude a reopened hearing. “[T]here is no claim here that the People’s proof at the suppression hearing was insufficient; the claim was that there was an error at the hearing — that, because of the nondisclosure of Brady material, defendant did not have a fair chance to refute the People’s case” (People v Williams, 7 NY3d 15, 21 [2006]). | 2 | 2 |
Matter of Baptiste v. Gregoiregreen2 sentences2026In so doing, we express no opinion as to the appropriate determination ( see Matter of Baptiste v Gregoire , 140 AD3d at 748 ). 2025In doing so, we express no opinion as to the appropriate determination ( see Matter of Baker v James , 210 AD3d at 678; Matter of Baptiste v Gregoire , 140 AD3d 746, 748). | 1 | 3 |
People v. Banchgreen2 sentences2005Even assuming that the trial court improvidently exercised its discretion when, after ruling that the People violated Brady v Maryland ( 373 US 83 [1963]) in connection with their delayed disclosure of the perjury investigation involving the detective who testified at the original suppression hearing, it permitted the People to call a new witness at the reopened hearing (see People v Havelka, 45 NY2d 636 [1978]), we find no basis for reversal (cf. People v Banch, 80 NY2d 610, 619 [1992]). 2000Subsequently, the defendant filed a written motion asserting that “the appropriate remedy for failure to produce Rosario material for a suppression hearing is a de novo hearing, not merely a reopened hearing.” (Citing People v Banch, 80 NY2d 610 [1992].) Most recently, the defendant has (orally) moved for a hearing such as that held in People v Martinez ( 71 NY2d 937 , supra) to consider Rosario sanctions. | 1 | 3 |
Matter of Baker v. Jamesgreen2 sentences2025In doing so, we express no opinion as to the appropriate determination ( see Matter of Baker v James , 210 AD3d at 678 ; Matter of Baptiste v Gregoire , 140 AD3d 746, 748 ). 2025In doing so, we express no opinion as to the appropriate determination ( see Matter of Baker v James , 210 AD3d at 678; Matter of Baptiste v Gregoire , 140 AD3d 746, 748). | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Turriagogreen | 1 | 1 |
Eschbach v. Eschbachgreen1 sentence2018"A court deciding an initial petition for child custody must determine what is in the child's best interests" ( Matter of Supangkat v Torres, 101 AD3d 889, 889-890 ; see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 ; Matter of McDonald v Thomas, 154 AD3d 763, 764 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Missouri v. Seibertgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Beneventogreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Paulmangreen | 1 | 1 |
| The People v. Marcus D. Hogangreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Clermontgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Chapplegreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Casanovagreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Kinggreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Harrisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Barbonigreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Clarkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Somervillegreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Satterfieldgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Rogeliogreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Matter of Lopez v. Reyes
green
2 sentences2021Accordingly, this Court remitted the matter to the Family Court, Orange County, for a reopened hearing on the new developments and a new custody and parental access determination thereafter ( see id. at 757 ). 2019In so doing, we again express no opinion as to the appropriate determination ( see Matter of Lopez v Reyes , 154 AD3d at 757 ). | 2 | 2019–2021 |
Gillis v. Gillis
green
2 sentences2019Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Family Court, Kings County, for a reopened hearing and, thereafter, a new determination setting forth a more detailed schedule of the school holiday and vacation parental access that is in the best interests of the child ( see Matter of Cabano v Petrella , 169 AD3d at 903; Matter of Alvarado v Cordova , 158 AD3d at 795; Gillis v Gillis , 113 AD3d at 817 ). 2018Accordingly, we must remit the matter to the Family Court, Nassau County, for a reopened hearing and, thereafter, a new determination setting forth a more detailed schedule of holiday and vacation visitation that is in the best interests of the children ( see Gillis v Gillis, 113 AD3d at 817 ; Matter of Felty v Felty, 108 AD3d 705, 708-709 ; Matter of Grunwald v Grunwald, 108 AD3d 537, 540 ; Matter of Ross v Morrison, 98 AD3d 515, 517 ; Matter of Aguirre v Romano, 73 AD3d 912, 914 ). | 2 | 2018–2019 |
Leval B. v. Kiona E.
green
2 sentences2015We express no opinion as to the appropriate determination (see Matter of Bosque v Blazejewski *724 D'Amato, 123 AD3d at 705 ; Matter of Leval B. v Kiona E., 115 AD3d at 667 ). 2014We express no opinion as to the appropriate determination (see Matter of Leval B. v Kiona E., 115 AD3d at 667 ). | 2 | 2014–2015 |
Evans v. New York
green
2 sentences2014Furthermore, even if a motion to reopen the Wade hearing had been made, and granted, the record shows that a reopened hearing would not have resulted in a different ruling (see People v Evans, 16 NY3d 571, 576 [2011], cert denied 565 US —, 132 S Ct 325 [2011]; People v Charles, 152 AD2d 593 [1989]). 2014Furthermore, even if a motion to reopen the Wade hearing had been made, and granted, the record shows that a reopened hearing would not have resulted in a different ruling (see People v Evans, 16 NY3d 571, 576 [2011], cert denied 565 US —, 132 S Ct 325 [2011]; People v Charles, 152 AD2d 593 [1989]). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Collier
green
2 sentences2014Furthermore, even if a motion to reopen the Wade hearing had been made, and granted, the record shows that a reopened hearing would not have resulted in a different ruling (see People v Evans, 16 NY3d 571, 576 [2011], cert denied 565 US —, 132 S Ct 325 [2011]; People v Charles, 152 AD2d 593 [1989]). 2014Furthermore, even if a motion to reopen the Wade hearing had been made, and granted, the record shows that a reopened hearing would not have resulted in a different ruling (see People v Evans, 16 NY3d 571, 576 [2011], cert denied 565 US —, 132 S Ct 325 [2011]; People v Charles, 152 AD2d 593 [1989]). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Perez
green
2 sentences2012After the reopened hearing was concluded, Justice Blumenfeld issued an order dated April 17, 2012, addressing that branch of Perez’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his videotaped statement ( 37 Misc 3d 272 [2012]). 2012After the reopened hearing was concluded, Justice Blumenfeld issued an order dated April 17, 2012, addressing that branch of Perez’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his videotaped statement ( 37 Misc 3d 272 [2012]). | 2 | 2012–2012 |
People v. Martinez
green
2 sentences2000Subsequently, the defendant filed a written motion asserting that “the appropriate remedy for failure to produce Rosario material for a suppression hearing is a de novo hearing, not merely a reopened hearing.” (Citing People v Banch, 80 NY2d 610 [1992].) Most recently, the defendant has (orally) moved for a hearing such as that held in People v Martinez ( 71 NY2d 937 , supra) to consider Rosario sanctions. 1990In any event, the court reopened the hearing for inquiry into this evidence, thereby curing any hypothetical errors (People v Kelly, 62 NY2d 516 ; People v Martinez, 71 NY2d 937 ). | 2 | 1990–2000 |
People v. Lebron
green
2 sentences1999Not only are the hearing court’s factual findings and credibility determinations entitled to great deference on appeal (see, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 ; People v Gordon, 242 AD2d 640 ; People v Pierre, 241 AD2d 559 ), but, on this record, it cannot be said that Detective Parker’s testimony at the reopened hearing was patently tailored to nullify constitutional objections (see, e.g., Matter of Bernice J., 248 AD2d 538 ; People v Black, 214 AD2d 619 ; People v Lebrón, 184 AD2d 784 ). 1999Not only are the hearing court’s factual findings and credibility determinations entitled to great deference on appeal (see, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 ; People v Gordon, 242 AD2d 640 ; People v Pierre, 241 AD2d 559 ), but, on this record, it cannot be said that Detective Parker’s testimony at the reopened hearing was patently tailored to nullify constitutional objections (see, e.g., Matter of Bernice J., 248 AD2d 538 ; People v Black, 214 AD2d 619 ; People v Lebron, 184 AD2d 784 ). | 2 | 1999–1999 |
People v. Black
green
2 sentences1999Not only are the hearing court’s factual findings and credibility determinations entitled to great deference on appeal (see, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 ; People v Gordon, 242 AD2d 640 ; People v Pierre, 241 AD2d 559 ), but, on this record, it cannot be said that Detective Parker’s testimony at the reopened hearing was patently tailored to nullify constitutional objections (see, e.g., Matter of Bernice J., 248 AD2d 538 ; People v Black, 214 AD2d 619 ; People v Lebrón, 184 AD2d 784 ). 1999Not only are the hearing court’s factual findings and credibility determinations entitled to great deference on appeal (see, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 ; People v Gordon, 242 AD2d 640 ; People v Pierre, 241 AD2d 559 ), but, on this record, it cannot be said that Detective Parker’s testimony at the reopened hearing was patently tailored to nullify constitutional objections (see, e.g., Matter of Bernice J., 248 AD2d 538 ; People v Black, 214 AD2d 619 ; People v Lebron, 184 AD2d 784 ). | 2 | 1999–1999 |
People v. Pierre
neutral
2 sentences1999Not only are the hearing court’s factual findings and credibility determinations entitled to great deference on appeal (see, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 ; People v Gordon, 242 AD2d 640 ; People v Pierre, 241 AD2d 559 ), but, on this record, it cannot be said that Detective Parker’s testimony at the reopened hearing was patently tailored to nullify constitutional objections (see, e.g., Matter of Bernice J., 248 AD2d 538 ; People v Black, 214 AD2d 619 ; People v Lebrón, 184 AD2d 784 ). 1999Not only are the hearing court’s factual findings and credibility determinations entitled to great deference on appeal (see, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 ; People v Gordon, 242 AD2d 640 ; People v Pierre, 241 AD2d 559 ), but, on this record, it cannot be said that Detective Parker’s testimony at the reopened hearing was patently tailored to nullify constitutional objections (see, e.g., Matter of Bernice J., 248 AD2d 538 ; People v Black, 214 AD2d 619 ; People v Lebron, 184 AD2d 784 ). | 2 | 1999–1999 |
People v. Glass
neutral
2 sentences1999Not only are the hearing court’s factual findings and credibility determinations entitled to great deference on appeal (see, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 ; People v Gordon, 242 AD2d 640 ; People v Pierre, 241 AD2d 559 ), but, on this record, it cannot be said that Detective Parker’s testimony at the reopened hearing was patently tailored to nullify constitutional objections (see, e.g., Matter of Bernice J., 248 AD2d 538 ; People v Black, 214 AD2d 619 ; People v Lebrón, 184 AD2d 784 ). 1999Not only are the hearing court’s factual findings and credibility determinations entitled to great deference on appeal (see, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 ; People v Gordon, 242 AD2d 640 ; People v Pierre, 241 AD2d 559 ), but, on this record, it cannot be said that Detective Parker’s testimony at the reopened hearing was patently tailored to nullify constitutional objections (see, e.g., Matter of Bernice J., 248 AD2d 538 ; People v Black, 214 AD2d 619 ; People v Lebron, 184 AD2d 784 ). | 2 | 1999–1999 |
In re Bernice J.
green
2 sentences1999Not only are the hearing court’s factual findings and credibility determinations entitled to great deference on appeal (see, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 ; People v Gordon, 242 AD2d 640 ; People v Pierre, 241 AD2d 559 ), but, on this record, it cannot be said that Detective Parker’s testimony at the reopened hearing was patently tailored to nullify constitutional objections (see, e.g., Matter of Bernice J., 248 AD2d 538 ; People v Black, 214 AD2d 619 ; People v Lebrón, 184 AD2d 784 ). 1999Not only are the hearing court’s factual findings and credibility determinations entitled to great deference on appeal (see, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 ; People v Gordon, 242 AD2d 640 ; People v Pierre, 241 AD2d 559 ), but, on this record, it cannot be said that Detective Parker’s testimony at the reopened hearing was patently tailored to nullify constitutional objections (see, e.g., Matter of Bernice J., 248 AD2d 538 ; People v Black, 214 AD2d 619 ; People v Lebron, 184 AD2d 784 ). | 2 | 1999–1999 |
In re Michael B.
green
1 sentence2022The attorney for the child has failed to set forth facts sufficient to demonstrate that the matter should be remitted to the Family Court for a reopened hearing ( cf. Matter of Michael B. , 80 NY2d 299, 317-318 ; Matter of Magana v Delph , 195 AD3d 720, 721-722 ). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Matter of Magana v. Delph
green
1 sentence2022The attorney for the child has failed to set forth facts sufficient to demonstrate that the matter should be remitted to the Family Court for a reopened hearing ( cf. Matter of Michael B. , 80 NY2d 299, 317-318 ; Matter of Magana v Delph , 195 AD3d 720, 721-722 ). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Robinson v. Nevada
green
1 sentence2019Although the majority suggests that the prosecutor must testify as a sworn witness and be subject [*8]to cross-examination, the Court of Appeals has held otherwise ( see People v Hameed , 88 NY2d 232 [1996], cert denied 519 US 1065 [1997]). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Hameed
green
1 sentence2019Although the majority suggests that the prosecutor must testify as a sworn witness and be subject [*8]to cross-examination, the Court of Appeals has held otherwise ( see People v Hameed , 88 NY2d 232 [1996], cert denied 519 US 1065 [1997]). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
In re Delroy A.
green
1 sentence2018Accordingly, we must remit the matter to the Family Court, Nassau County, for a reopened hearing and, thereafter, a new determination setting forth a more detailed schedule of holiday and vacation visitation that is in the best interests of the children ( see Gillis v Gillis, 113 AD3d at 817 ; Matter of Felty v Felty, 108 AD3d 705, 708-709 ; Matter of Grunwald v Grunwald, 108 AD3d 537, 540 ; Matter of Ross v Morrison, 98 AD3d 515, 517 ; Matter of Aguirre v Romano, 73 AD3d 912, 914 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Ross v. Morrison green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Matter of McDonald v. Thomas green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Supangkat v. Torres
green
1 sentence2018"A court deciding an initial petition for child custody must determine what is in the child's best interests" ( Matter of Supangkat v Torres, 101 AD3d 889, 889-890 ; see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 ; Matter of McDonald v Thomas, 154 AD3d 763, 764 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Grunwald v. Grunwald
green
1 sentence2018Accordingly, we must remit the matter to the Family Court, Nassau County, for a reopened hearing and, thereafter, a new determination setting forth a more detailed schedule of holiday and vacation visitation that is in the best interests of the children ( see Gillis v Gillis, 113 AD3d at 817 ; Matter of Felty v Felty, 108 AD3d 705, 708-709 ; Matter of Grunwald v Grunwald, 108 AD3d 537, 540 ; Matter of Ross v Morrison, 98 AD3d 515, 517 ; Matter of Aguirre v Romano, 73 AD3d 912, 914 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Felty v. Felty
green
1 sentence2018Accordingly, we must remit the matter to the Family Court, Nassau County, for a reopened hearing and, thereafter, a new determination setting forth a more detailed schedule of holiday and vacation visitation that is in the best interests of the children ( see Gillis v Gillis, 113 AD3d at 817 ; Matter of Felty v Felty, 108 AD3d 705, 708-709 ; Matter of Grunwald v Grunwald, 108 AD3d 537, 540 ; Matter of Ross v Morrison, 98 AD3d 515, 517 ; Matter of Aguirre v Romano, 73 AD3d 912, 914 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Matter of Bosque v. Blazejewski-D'Amato green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| People v. Suitte green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| People v. Johnson green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Brady v. Maryland green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| People v. Flores green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| People v. Coste green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| People v. Arnau green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| People v. Ortiz green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| People v. Feerick green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| People v. Thompson green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| People v. Hobot green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| People v. Cosme green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| People v. Blount green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| People v. Blount neutral | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Foddrell v. United States green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| People v. Broadie green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| People v. Rickert green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| People v. Van Pelt green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.