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 2004–2009 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Peltgreen2 sentences2009With intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes such injury to such person or to a third person.” On a motion to dismiss an accusatory instrument, the court must confine its analysis to the allegations contained in the complaint and in any depositions filed in support of it (see People v Pelt, 157 Misc 2d 90, 92 [Crim Ct, Kings County 1993]; People v Fink, NYLJ, May 22, 1992, at 23, col 4 [Crim Ct, NY County]). 2008(See People v Alejandro, 70 NY2d at 138 ; see also People v Konieczny, 2 NY3d 569, 576 [2004]; People v Voelker, 172 Misc 2d 564 [Crim Ct, Kings County 1997]; People v Pelt, 157 Misc 2d 90 [Crim Ct, Kings County 1993].) “[T]he court . . . may not consider [any] extraneous allegations contained in a motion to dismiss or an answer to a motion to dismiss.” (People v Voelker, 172 Misc 2d at 569 .) The relevant portion of Penal Law § 240.30 provides that: “[a] person is guilty of aggravated harassment in the second degree when, with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another person, he or she: “1. | 2 | 4 |
People v. Koniecznygreen2 sentences2009(CPL 100.40 [1], [4]; People v Alejandro at 138 ; People v Konieczny, 2 NY3d 569 [2004].) New facts contained in the affirmation in opposition are not part of the accusatory instrument and cannot serve to cure any of its alleged jurisdictional defects. 2008(See People v Alejandro, 70 NY2d at 138 ; see also People v Konieczny, 2 NY3d 569, 576 [2004]; People v Voelker, 172 Misc 2d 564 [Crim Ct, Kings County 1997]; People v Pelt, 157 Misc 2d 90 [Crim Ct, Kings County 1993].) “[T]he court . . . may not consider [any] extraneous allegations contained in a motion to dismiss or an answer to a motion to dismiss.” (People v Voelker, 172 Misc 2d at 569 .) The relevant portion of Penal Law § 240.30 provides that: “[a] person is guilty of aggravated harassment in the second degree when, with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another person, he or she: “1. | 2 | 3 |
People v. Allengreen2 sentences2009(People v Allen, 92 NY2d 378, 385 [1998].) In deciding a motion to dismiss for facial insufficiency, a court must confine its analysis to the allegations contained solely in the complaint and any depositions filed in support of it. 2008(People v Allen, 92 NY2d 378, 385 [1998].) In deciding a motion to dismiss for facial insufficiency, a court must confine its analysis to the allegations contained solely in the complaint and any depositions filed in support of it. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Hendersongreen1 sentence2008(See People v Henderson, 92 NY2d 677, 680 [1999].) Moreover, in deciding this motion the court must confine its analysis to the allegations contained solely in the complaint and any depositions filed in support of it. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Alejandro
green
2 sentences2008(See People v Alejandro, 70 NY2d at 138 ; see also People v Konieczny, 2 NY3d 569, 576 [2004]; People v Voelker, 172 Misc 2d 564 [Crim Ct, Kings County 1997]; People v Pelt, 157 Misc 2d 90 [Crim Ct, Kings County 1993].) “[T]he court . . . may not consider [any] extraneous allegations contained in a motion to dismiss or an answer to a motion to dismiss.” (People v Voelker, 172 Misc 2d at 569 .) The relevant portion of Penal Law § 240.30 provides that: “[a] person is guilty of aggravated harassment in the second degree when, with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another person, he or she: “1. 2007(People v Pelt, 157 Misc 2d 90 [Crim Ct, Kings County 1993]; People v Alejandro, 70 NY2d 133 [1987], supra.) A. Reckless Driving Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1212 (reckless driving) reads, in relevant part, that: “Reckless driving shall mean driving or using any motor vehicle, motorcycle or any other vehicle propelled by any power other than muscular power or any appliance or accessory thereof in a manner which unreasonably interferes with the free and proper use of the public highway, or unreasonably endangers users of the public highway.” The information and the supporting depositions of Cassan | 2 | 2007–2008 |
People v. Voelker
green
2 sentences2008(See People v Alejandro, 70 NY2d at 138 ; see also People v Konieczny, 2 NY3d 569, 576 [2004]; People v Voelker, 172 Misc 2d 564 [Crim Ct, Kings County 1997]; People v Pelt, 157 Misc 2d 90 [Crim Ct, Kings County 1993].) “[T]he court . . . may not consider [any] extraneous allegations contained in a motion to dismiss or an answer to a motion to dismiss.” (People v Voelker, 172 Misc 2d at 569 .) The relevant portion of Penal Law § 240.30 provides that: “[a] person is guilty of aggravated harassment in the second degree when, with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another person, he or she: “1. 2008(See People v Alejandro, 70 NY2d at 138 ; see also People v Konieczny, 2 NY3d 569, 576 [2004]; People v Voelker, 172 Misc 2d 564 [Crim Ct, Kings County 1997]; People v Pelt, 157 Misc 2d 90 [Crim Ct, Kings County 1993].) “[T]he court . . . may not consider [any] extraneous allegations contained in a motion to dismiss or an answer to a motion to dismiss.” (People v Voelker, 172 Misc 2d at 569 .) The relevant portion of Penal Law § 240.30 provides that: “[a] person is guilty of aggravated harassment in the second degree when, with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another person, he or she: “1. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.