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 1 courts 1998–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Matter of Williams v. Annuccigreen2 sentences2019Although the request for urinalysis form reflects that the urine specimen was returned to the freezer after it was tested, the testing officer explained that this was an inadvertent clerical error inasmuch as he personally disposed of the specimen following the testing ( see Matter of Blunt v Annucci , 155 AD3d at 1226-1227 ; Matter of Williams v Annucci , 141 AD3d 1062, 1063 [2016]). 2019Similarly, although the testing officer's signature did not appear on the bottom of the form containing the second test result, the officer testified that he conducted the test and that this omission was also an inadvertent clerical error ( see Matter of Blunt v Annucci , 155 AD3d 1226, 1226-1227 [2017]; Matter of Williams v Annucci , 141 AD3d 1062, 1063 [2016]). | 3 | 3 |
Matter of Blunt v. Annuccigreen2 sentences2019Although the request for urinalysis form reflects that the urine specimen was returned to the freezer after it was tested, the testing officer explained that this was an inadvertent clerical error inasmuch as he personally disposed of the specimen following the testing ( see Matter of Blunt v Annucci , 155 AD3d at 1226-1227 ; Matter of Williams v Annucci , 141 AD3d 1062, 1063 [2016]). 2019Similarly, although the testing officer's signature did not appear on the bottom of the form containing the second test result, the officer testified that he conducted the test and that this omission was also an inadvertent clerical error ( see Matter of Blunt v Annucci , 155 AD3d 1226, 1226-1227 [2017]; Matter of Williams v Annucci , 141 AD3d 1062, 1063 [2016]). | 1 | 2 |
Matter of Lyons v. Annuccigreen1 sentence2019Moreover, the officer conducting the EMIT tests was not required to refrigerate the urine sample during the 12 [*2]minutes that elapsed between the two tests ( see 7 NYCRR 1020.4 [f] [1] [ii]; cf. Matter of Lyons v Annucci , 152 AD3d 1099, 1100 [2017]; Matter of Peterson v Goord , 268 AD2d 739 , 739 [2000]; see also Dept of Corr & Community Supervision former Directive No. 4937 [IV] [G] [1]; Appendix C [Oct. 22, 2014]). | 1 | 1 |
Selah v. LaValleygreen1 sentence2019Furthermore, inasmuch as the determination of guilt was not based upon any confidential information, the circumstances that resulted in the drug test were irrelevant, and it [*2]was unnecessary for the Hearing Officer to assess the credibility of the information ( see Matter of Smith v Venettozzi , 145 AD3d 1277, 1278 [2016], lv denied 29 NY3d 910 [2017]; Matter of Selah v LaValley , 117 AD3d 1261, 1261-1262 [2014]). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Smith v. Venettozzigreen1 sentence2019Furthermore, inasmuch as the determination of guilt was not based upon any confidential information, the circumstances that resulted in the drug test were irrelevant, and it [*2]was unnecessary for the Hearing Officer to assess the credibility of the information ( see Matter of Smith v Venettozzi , 145 AD3d 1277, 1278 [2016], lv denied 29 NY3d 910 [2017]; Matter of Selah v LaValley , 117 AD3d 1261, 1261-1262 [2014]). | 1 | 1 |
Board of Managers of Sea Breeze II Condominium v. Kwiecinskigreen1 sentence2017Contrary to the father’s contention, the Family Court did not err in determining that the December 9, 2015, order dismissing the mother’s petition as academic was an inadvertent clerical error and that the Support Magistrate’s issuance of the March 11, 2016 order in correction was proper (see CPLR 5019 [a]; Braunstein v Braunstein, 132 AD3d 620, 625 [2015]; Kim v Schiller, 112 AD3d 671, 674-675 [2013]; Manditch v Manditch, 87 AD3d 985, 986 [2011]; Reback v Reback, 73 AD3d 890, 890 [2010]; Board of Mgrs. of Sea Breeze II Condominium v Kwiecinski, 72 AD3d 630, 630 [2010]; Sommers v Sommers, 25 A | 1 | 1 |
Reback v. Rebackgreen1 sentence2017Contrary to the father’s contention, the Family Court did not err in determining that the December 9, 2015, order dismissing the mother’s petition as academic was an inadvertent clerical error and that the Support Magistrate’s issuance of the March 11, 2016 order in correction was proper (see CPLR 5019 [a]; Braunstein v Braunstein, 132 AD3d 620, 625 [2015]; Kim v Schiller, 112 AD3d 671, 674-675 [2013]; Manditch v Manditch, 87 AD3d 985, 986 [2011]; Reback v Reback, 73 AD3d 890, 890 [2010]; Board of Mgrs. of Sea Breeze II Condominium v Kwiecinski, 72 AD3d 630, 630 [2010]; Sommers v Sommers, 25 A | 1 | 1 |
In re Liston J.green1 sentence2017In order to obtain an upward modification of the father’s support obligation as set forth in the order on consent, the mother was required to show a substantial change in circumstances since the issuance of that order (see Matter of Morgan v Spence, 139 AD3d 859, 861 [2016]; Matter of Kay v Desantis, 114 AD3d 947, 947-948 [2014]; Matter of Rabasco v Lamar, 106 AD3d 1095, 1096 [2013]; Matter of Braun v Abenanti, 103 AD3d 717, 719 [2013]; Matter of Anderson v Anderson, 92 AD3d 779, 780 [2012]; Matter of Ceballos v Castillo, 85 AD3d 1161, 1162 [2011]; Matter of Ish-Shalom v Wittmann, 81 AD3d 648, | 1 | 1 |
Ceballos v. Castillogreen1 sentence2017In order to obtain an upward modification of the father’s support obligation as set forth in the order on consent, the mother was required to show a substantial change in circumstances since the issuance of that order (see Matter of Morgan v Spence, 139 AD3d 859, 861 [2016]; Matter of Kay v Desantis, 114 AD3d 947, 947-948 [2014]; Matter of Rabasco v Lamar, 106 AD3d 1095, 1096 [2013]; Matter of Braun v Abenanti, 103 AD3d 717, 719 [2013]; Matter of Anderson v Anderson, 92 AD3d 779, 780 [2012]; Matter of Ceballos v Castillo, 85 AD3d 1161, 1162 [2011]; Matter of Ish-Shalom v Wittmann, 81 AD3d 648, | 1 | 1 |
Manditch v. Manditchgreen1 sentence2017Contrary to the father’s contention, the Family Court did not err in determining that the December 9, 2015, order dismissing the mother’s petition as academic was an inadvertent clerical error and that the Support Magistrate’s issuance of the March 11, 2016 order in correction was proper (see CPLR 5019 [a]; Braunstein v Braunstein, 132 AD3d 620, 625 [2015]; Kim v Schiller, 112 AD3d 671, 674-675 [2013]; Manditch v Manditch, 87 AD3d 985, 986 [2011]; Reback v Reback, 73 AD3d 890, 890 [2010]; Board of Mgrs. of Sea Breeze II Condominium v Kwiecinski, 72 AD3d 630, 630 [2010]; Sommers v Sommers, 25 A | 1 | 1 |
Anderson v. Andersongreen1 sentence2017In order to obtain an upward modification of the father’s support obligation as set forth in the order on consent, the mother was required to show a substantial change in circumstances since the issuance of that order (see Matter of Morgan v Spence, 139 AD3d 859, 861 [2016]; Matter of Kay v Desantis, 114 AD3d 947, 947-948 [2014]; Matter of Rabasco v Lamar, 106 AD3d 1095, 1096 [2013]; Matter of Braun v Abenanti, 103 AD3d 717, 719 [2013]; Matter of Anderson v Anderson, 92 AD3d 779, 780 [2012]; Matter of Ceballos v Castillo, 85 AD3d 1161, 1162 [2011]; Matter of Ish-Shalom v Wittmann, 81 AD3d 648, | 1 | 1 |
Braunstein v. Braunsteingreen1 sentence2017Contrary to the father’s contention, the Family Court did not err in determining that the December 9, 2015, order dismissing the mother’s petition as academic was an inadvertent clerical error and that the Support Magistrate’s issuance of the March 11, 2016 order in correction was proper (see CPLR 5019 [a]; Braunstein v Braunstein, 132 AD3d 620, 625 [2015]; Kim v Schiller, 112 AD3d 671, 674-675 [2013]; Manditch v Manditch, 87 AD3d 985, 986 [2011]; Reback v Reback, 73 AD3d 890, 890 [2010]; Board of Mgrs. of Sea Breeze II Condominium v Kwiecinski, 72 AD3d 630, 630 [2010]; Sommers v Sommers, 25 A | 1 | 1 |
Braun v. Abenantigreen1 sentence2017In order to obtain an upward modification of the father’s support obligation as set forth in the order on consent, the mother was required to show a substantial change in circumstances since the issuance of that order (see Matter of Morgan v Spence, 139 AD3d 859, 861 [2016]; Matter of Kay v Desantis, 114 AD3d 947, 947-948 [2014]; Matter of Rabasco v Lamar, 106 AD3d 1095, 1096 [2013]; Matter of Braun v Abenanti, 103 AD3d 717, 719 [2013]; Matter of Anderson v Anderson, 92 AD3d 779, 780 [2012]; Matter of Ceballos v Castillo, 85 AD3d 1161, 1162 [2011]; Matter of Ish-Shalom v Wittmann, 81 AD3d 648, | 1 | 1 |
Rabasco v. Lamargreen1 sentence2017In order to obtain an upward modification of the father’s support obligation as set forth in the order on consent, the mother was required to show a substantial change in circumstances since the issuance of that order (see Matter of Morgan v Spence, 139 AD3d 859, 861 [2016]; Matter of Kay v Desantis, 114 AD3d 947, 947-948 [2014]; Matter of Rabasco v Lamar, 106 AD3d 1095, 1096 [2013]; Matter of Braun v Abenanti, 103 AD3d 717, 719 [2013]; Matter of Anderson v Anderson, 92 AD3d 779, 780 [2012]; Matter of Ceballos v Castillo, 85 AD3d 1161, 1162 [2011]; Matter of Ish-Shalom v Wittmann, 81 AD3d 648, | 1 | 1 |
Kim v. Schillergreen1 sentence2017Contrary to the father’s contention, the Family Court did not err in determining that the December 9, 2015, order dismissing the mother’s petition as academic was an inadvertent clerical error and that the Support Magistrate’s issuance of the March 11, 2016 order in correction was proper (see CPLR 5019 [a]; Braunstein v Braunstein, 132 AD3d 620, 625 [2015]; Kim v Schiller, 112 AD3d 671, 674-675 [2013]; Manditch v Manditch, 87 AD3d 985, 986 [2011]; Reback v Reback, 73 AD3d 890, 890 [2010]; Board of Mgrs. of Sea Breeze II Condominium v Kwiecinski, 72 AD3d 630, 630 [2010]; Sommers v Sommers, 25 A | 1 | 1 |
Kay v. Desantisgreen1 sentence2017In order to obtain an upward modification of the father’s support obligation as set forth in the order on consent, the mother was required to show a substantial change in circumstances since the issuance of that order (see Matter of Morgan v Spence, 139 AD3d 859, 861 [2016]; Matter of Kay v Desantis, 114 AD3d 947, 947-948 [2014]; Matter of Rabasco v Lamar, 106 AD3d 1095, 1096 [2013]; Matter of Braun v Abenanti, 103 AD3d 717, 719 [2013]; Matter of Anderson v Anderson, 92 AD3d 779, 780 [2012]; Matter of Ceballos v Castillo, 85 AD3d 1161, 1162 [2011]; Matter of Ish-Shalom v Wittmann, 81 AD3d 648, | 1 | 1 |
Sommers v. Sommersgreen1 sentence2017Contrary to the father’s contention, the Family Court did not err in determining that the December 9, 2015, order dismissing the mother’s petition as academic was an inadvertent clerical error and that the Support Magistrate’s issuance of the March 11, 2016 order in correction was proper (see CPLR 5019 [a]; Braunstein v Braunstein, 132 AD3d 620, 625 [2015]; Kim v Schiller, 112 AD3d 671, 674-675 [2013]; Manditch v Manditch, 87 AD3d 985, 986 [2011]; Reback v Reback, 73 AD3d 890, 890 [2010]; Board of Mgrs. of Sea Breeze II Condominium v Kwiecinski, 72 AD3d 630, 630 [2010]; Sommers v Sommers, 25 A | 1 | 1 |
Marino v. New York State Department of Correctional Servicesgreen1 sentence2017Moreover, to the extent that petitioner’s maintains that his urine sample was tampered with and that the misbehavior report was written in retaliation for complaints that he filed against prison officials, this presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Green v Annucci, 148 AD3d at 1444 ; Matter of Marino v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 41 AD3d 1004, 1005 [2007], appeal dismissed, lv denied 9 NY3d 940 [2007]). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Morgan v. Spencegreen1 sentence2017In order to obtain an upward modification of the father’s support obligation as set forth in the order on consent, the mother was required to show a substantial change in circumstances since the issuance of that order (see Matter of Morgan v Spence, 139 AD3d 859, 861 [2016]; Matter of Kay v Desantis, 114 AD3d 947, 947-948 [2014]; Matter of Rabasco v Lamar, 106 AD3d 1095, 1096 [2013]; Matter of Braun v Abenanti, 103 AD3d 717, 719 [2013]; Matter of Anderson v Anderson, 92 AD3d 779, 780 [2012]; Matter of Ceballos v Castillo, 85 AD3d 1161, 1162 [2011]; Matter of Ish-Shalom v Wittmann, 81 AD3d 648, | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Belle v. Prackgreen1 sentence2017Although the testing officer’s signature did not appear on the bottom of the form containing the second test result, the officer testified that she conducted the test and that this omission was an inadvertent clerical error (see Matter of Williams v Annucci, 141 AD3d 1062, 1063 [2016]; see also Matter of Belle v Prack, 140 AD3d 1509, 1510 [2016]). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Maldonado v. Selsky
neutral
2 sentences2000Despite the inadvertent clerical error in recording petitioner’s inmate identification number on one of the test forms, the evidence in the record establishes the requisite chain of custody and demonstrates that the test was conducted on the same material that petitioner passed to the other inmate (see, Matter of Maldonado v Selsky, 162 AD2d 843 ). 1998The fact that an inadvertent clerical error was made by a correction officer in transcribing a test number onto the inventory form provided to petitioner does not, under the particular circumstances here, mandate a contrary conclusion (see, Matter of Martinez v Ross, 243 AD2d 914 , appeal dismissed 91 NY2d 887 ; Matter of Maldonado v Selsky, 162 AD2d 843, 844 ). | 2 | 1998–2000 |
Peterson v. Goord
green
1 sentence2019Moreover, the officer conducting the EMIT tests was not required to refrigerate the urine sample during the 12 [*2]minutes that elapsed between the two tests ( see 7 NYCRR 1020.4 [f] [1] [ii]; cf. Matter of Lyons v Annucci , 152 AD3d 1099, 1100 [2017]; Matter of Peterson v Goord , 268 AD2d 739 , 739 [2000]; see also Dept of Corr & Community Supervision former Directive No. 4937 [IV] [G] [1]; Appendix C [Oct. 22, 2014]). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
JD's Towing & Battery Ctr., Inc. v. New York State Dept. of Motor Veh.
green
1 sentence2019Furthermore, inasmuch as the determination of guilt was not based upon any confidential information, the circumstances that resulted in the drug test were irrelevant, and it [*2]was unnecessary for the Hearing Officer to assess the credibility of the information ( see Matter of Smith v Venettozzi , 145 AD3d 1277, 1278 [2016], lv denied 29 NY3d 910 [2017]; Matter of Selah v LaValley , 117 AD3d 1261, 1261-1262 [2014]). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
KANOVSKY v. Montefiore Medical Center
neutral
1 sentence2017Moreover, to the extent that petitioner’s maintains that his urine sample was tampered with and that the misbehavior report was written in retaliation for complaints that he filed against prison officials, this presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Green v Annucci, 148 AD3d at 1444 ; Matter of Marino v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 41 AD3d 1004, 1005 [2007], appeal dismissed, lv denied 9 NY3d 940 [2007]). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Green v. Annucci
green
1 sentence2017Moreover, to the extent that petitioner’s maintains that his urine sample was tampered with and that the misbehavior report was written in retaliation for complaints that he filed against prison officials, this presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Green v Annucci, 148 AD3d at 1444 ; Matter of Marino v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 41 AD3d 1004, 1005 [2007], appeal dismissed, lv denied 9 NY3d 940 [2007]). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Johnson v. Goord
neutral
1 sentence2000Likewise, there is no merit to petitioner’s contention that, considering the time frame between the incident as noted in the misbehavior report and when the test results were available, the report must have been based on conjecture (see, Matter of Venegas v Irvin, 249 AD2d 982 ). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Martinez v. Ross
neutral
1 sentence1998The fact that an inadvertent clerical error was made by a correction officer in transcribing a test number onto the inventory form provided to petitioner does not, under the particular circumstances here, mandate a contrary conclusion (see, Matter of Martinez v Ross, 243 AD2d 914 , appeal dismissed 91 NY2d 887 ; Matter of Maldonado v Selsky, 162 AD2d 843, 844 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.