6 New York opinions name it 5 courts 1975–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Scherbyn v. Wayne-Finger Lakes Board of Cooperative Educational Servicesgreen2 sentences2025As should be obvious, it is the intended purpose of the communication that controls the analysis—and advising judges on how to interpret and apply the law in matters before the judge is inconsistent with the attorney-client privilege. [FN4] Additionally, and contrary to the majority's view, because OCA asserted an attorney-client relationship with all UCS judges solely by nature of its status, OCA is limited to advancing that justification and no other for its purported attorney-client privilege upon remittal ( see majority op at 9 n 3; see also Matter of Madeiros , 30 NY3d at 74, quoting Sche 2025As should be obvious, it is the intended purpose of the communication that controls the analysis—and advising judges on how to interpret and apply the law in matters before the judge is inconsistent with the attorney-client privilege. [FN4] Additionally, and contrary to the majority's view, because OCA asserted an attorney-client relationship with all UCS judges solely by nature of its status, OCA is limited to advancing that justification and no other for its purported attorney-client privilege upon remittal ( see majority op at 9 n 3; see also Matter of Madeiros , 30 NY3d at 74, quoting Sche | 1 | 1 |
People v. Weissgreen1 sentence2008Thus, this case is unlike People v Weiss ( 17 Misc 3d 6, 8-9 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2007]), where the court declined to decide whether a communication in violation of an order of protection would prima facie establish the element of calling “with no purpose of legitimate communication.” There, the order of protection was unsigned by Weiss, the date and time of its purported service on him were left blank, and the People did not serve and file a certified copy of it. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Caseygreen2 sentences2007However, we need not reach the issue of whether a communication in violation of an order of protection would establish prima facie the existence of the element of the crime of aggravated harassment in the second degree consisting of a call “with no purpose of legitimate communication,” since no certified copy of the order of protection was annexed to the information so as to bolster its factual allegations (see People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 361-362 [2000]), and a facial examination of the information does not reveal whether the complainant’s allegations were based on direct knowledge of the ord 2007Thus, the nonhearsay requirement of CPL 100.40 (1) (c) remained unsatisfied and a motion was properly brought by defendant seeking dismissal of the aggravated harassment count on this ground (People v Casey, 95 NY2d at 361 ). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Tejeda v. Woodycrest Realty, L.L.C.
neutral
1 sentence2008This Court then granted the order to show cause, set a briefing schedule, and directed the motion court to decide plaintiffs motion to vacate his default on his June 2005 motion to vacate the settlement ( 39 AD3d 210 [2007]). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Wolfgruber v. Upjohn Co.
green
1 sentence1982On the record it appears conclusively that any claimed insufficiency in the warnings given or in the communication of such warnings by Purepac to the medical profession was not “a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injuries” (Wolfgruber v Upjohn Co., 72 AD2d 59, 62 , affd 52 NY2d 768 , citing Codling v Paglia, 32 NY2d 330, 342 ). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Codling v. Paglia
green
1 sentence1982On the record it appears conclusively that any claimed insufficiency in the warnings given or in the communication of such warnings by Purepac to the medical profession was not “a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injuries” (Wolfgruber v Upjohn Co., 72 AD2d 59, 62 , affd 52 NY2d 768 , citing Codling v Paglia, 32 NY2d 330, 342 ). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Wolfgruber v. Upjohn Co.
green
1 sentence1982On the record it appears conclusively that any claimed insufficiency in the warnings given or in the communication of such warnings by Purepac to the medical profession was not “a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injuries” (Wolfgruber v Upjohn Co., 72 AD2d 59, 62 , affd 52 NY2d 768 , citing Codling v Paglia, 32 NY2d 330, 342 ). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Hurlburt v. . Hurlburt
green
1 sentence1975That court then launched into the following hyperbole to rationalize its breach of the privilege: "In regard to the second condition there is no evidence as to the essentiality of confidentiality between the social worker and the mother, and no evidence has been submitted as to the character or the extent of the relationship between the social worker and the mother.” In a footnote the Judge makes the same reference to Hurlburt v Hurlburt (supra), as was made by the Judge in Matter of Humphrey (supra). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Humphrey v. Norden
neutral
1 sentence1975That court then launched into the following hyperbole to rationalize its breach of the privilege: "In regard to the second condition there is no evidence as to the essentiality of confidentiality between the social worker and the mother, and no evidence has been submitted as to the character or the extent of the relationship between the social worker and the mother.” In a footnote the Judge makes the same reference to Hurlburt v Hurlburt (supra), as was made by the Judge in Matter of Humphrey (supra). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.