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 3 courts 1995–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Michael J. MARKOWSKI, Petitioner, v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Respondentgreen2 sentences2025Markowski v. S.E.C. , 34 F.3d 99, 105 (2d Cir. 1994) (holding that invoke an advice-of-counsel defense, a party must, among other things, show that he "received advice that his conduct was legal"). 2025Markowski v. S.E.C. , 34 F.3d 99, 105 (2d Cir. 1994) (holding that invoke an advice-of-counsel defense, a party must, among other things, show that he "received advice that his conduct was legal"). | 3 | 3 |
Bluebird Partners, L.P. v. First Fidelity Bank, N. A.green1 sentence2026Bank, N.J., 248 AD2d 219, 223 [1st Dept 1998], lv dismissed 92 NY2d 946 [1998]), as opposed to legal decisions, which are protected. | 1 | 1 |
In re the Estate of Rothkogreen1 sentence2026In particular, the record presents conflicting evidence as to whether defendants were making business decisions, which are not protected by the advice of counsel defense ( see Matter of Rothko, 43 NY2d 305, 320 [1977]; Bluebird Partners v First Fid. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Siegelgreen1 sentence2020The record fails to support defendant's claim that, in a colloquy about the prospective witness's testimony about a document, the People compelled the witness to assert his privilege against self-incrimination by threatening a perjury prosecution ( see People v Siegel , 87 NY2d 536, 542-543 [1995]). | 1 | 1 |
Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Clariti Eyewear, Inc.green1 sentence2017We recognize that the opinion of counsel “may be relevant to the issue of willful infringement, for timely consultation with counsel may be evidence that an infringer did not engage in objectively reckless behavior” (Aspex Eyewear Inc. v Clariti Eyewear, Inc., 605 F3d 1305, 1313 [Fed Cir 2010]). | 1 | 1 |
Bennett v. Oot & Associatesgreen1 sentence1995Co., 497 F2d 1190, 1194-1195 [2d Cir 1974]; Bennett v Oot & Assocs., 162 Misc 2d 160, 162 [Sup Ct, Tompkins County 1994]), or where a defendant asserts an advice of counsel defense but refuses to reveal what counsel’s advice was. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Seagate Technology, LLC
red
1 sentence2017In re Seagate Tech., LLC ( 497 F3d 1360 , 1374 [Fed Cir 2007], cert denied 552 US 1230 [2008]) 3 held that the assertion of an advice of counsel defense in a patent infringement action does not automatically constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Orco Bank v. Pacifico
green
1 sentence1995(See, Orco Bank v Proteinas Del Pacifico, 179 AD2d 390 [1st Dept 1992]; Securities & Exch. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.