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.
6 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1987–2006 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Berry v. Portuondogreen1 sentence2006Moreover, we find no merit to petitioner’s claim that the hearing was not commenced in a timely manner as there was some confusion over petitioner’s selection of an assistant and the hearing was delayed and an extension obtained to enable petitioner to confer with one (see Matter of Berry v Portuondo, 6 AD3d 848, 849 [2004]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Salemigreen1 sentence1993(People v Salemi, 309 NY 208, 215-216 [1955].) These requirements can be condensed into three basic ques tions: (1) could an exercise of due diligence have led to discovery of the evidence before trial? (2) is the evidence material, not cumulative and not merely impeaching of former evidence? and (3) would the evidence probably have changed the verdict at trial? 2 This court must apply this three-part test to the evidence that Officer Rossi committed perjury when he testified before the Grand Jury in the Mora case, as alleged by the District Attorney’s office. (1) Due Diligence It is uncontest | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fama v. Mann
green
1 sentence2000Further, petitioner has failed to demonstrate prejudice arising from any other irregularities in the record (see, Matter of Fama v Mann, 196 AD2d 919 , lv denied 82 NY2d 662 ). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Feliciano v. Selsky
green
1 sentence2000Accordingly, the hearing was commenced at least 24 hours after petitioner’s first meeting with the assistant and the rule was not violated (see, 7 NYCRR 254.6 [a]; Matter of Feliciano v Selsky, 239 AD2d 799 ). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Alvarez v. Goord
green
1 sentence1999The record demonstrates that petitioner understood and knowledgeably participated in the disciplinary hearing and, therefore, the absence of an assistant at the hearing provided no basis for Supreme Court to disturb the determination (see, Matter of Alvarez v Goord, 243 AD2d 973, 974 ). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Brown v. Coughlin
green
1 sentence1995Even accepting the version of petitioner that he did not see an assistant before the hearing commenced, any deficiency in employee assistance was properly cured at the hearing stage, petitioner suffered no prejudice (see, Matter of Mabry v Coughlin, 191 AD2d 892, 893 ; Matter of Brown v Coughlin, 165 AD2d 935, 936 ), and he was not denied the right to a timely hearing. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Mabry v. Coughlin
green
1 sentence1995Even accepting the version of petitioner that he did not see an assistant before the hearing commenced, any deficiency in employee assistance was properly cured at the hearing stage, petitioner suffered no prejudice (see, Matter of Mabry v Coughlin, 191 AD2d 892, 893 ; Matter of Brown v Coughlin, 165 AD2d 935, 936 ), and he was not denied the right to a timely hearing. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
People v. Adams
green
1 sentence1987(See, People v Adams, supra.) By contrast, a prosecutor cannot be criticized for withholding immunity from a coperpetrator, even if he offers to exculpate the defendant. 2 The cases on which the Assistant at bar relies are but examples of this proposition. | 1 | 1987–1987 |