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 1962–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Timmonsgreen1 sentence2025Departmental policy was explicit that the testifying officer was not required to investigate whether such an alternative to towing existed and, as we have previously made clear, "[i]t would indeed be an onerous rule that requires the police, in every case where there is a custodial arrest, to inquire whether somebody, somewhere may be available to drive the arrestee's car and to further require that the police then cast about trying to find such person" ( People v Schwing , 13 AD3d 725, 726 [3d Dept 2004]; see People v Wilburn , 50 AD3d 1617, 1618 [4th Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 742 [2008]) | 1 | 1 |
People v. Schwinggreen1 sentence2025Departmental policy was explicit that the testifying officer was not required to investigate whether such an alternative to towing existed and, as we have previously made clear, "[i]t would indeed be an onerous rule that requires the police, in every case where there is a custodial arrest, to inquire whether somebody, somewhere may be available to drive the arrestee's car and to further require that the police then cast about trying to find such person" ( People v Schwing , 13 AD3d 725, 726 [3d Dept 2004]; see People v Wilburn , 50 AD3d 1617, 1618 [4th Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 742 [2008]) | 1 | 1 |
People v. Campbellgreen1 sentence2025Departmental policy was explicit that the testifying officer was not required to investigate whether such an alternative to towing existed and, as we have previously made clear, "[i]t would indeed be an onerous rule that requires the police, in every case where there is a custodial arrest, to inquire whether somebody, somewhere may be available to drive the arrestee's car and to further require that the police then cast about trying to find such person" ( People v Schwing , 13 AD3d 725, 726 [3d Dept 2004]; see People v Wilburn , 50 AD3d 1617, 1618 [4th Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 742 [2008]) | 1 | 1 |
People v. Henrygreen1 sentence2017(Cf. People v Valle, 39 Misc 3d 126[A] , 2013 NY Slip Op 50409 [U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2013] [not reaching state standard where court concluded that federal standard violated].) Here, the court concludes that, even if the defendant did not meet the federal standard, she has met the state standard. 4 In evaluating a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under the State Constitution, a court considers whether the defendant was afforded “meaningful representation.” (People v Henry, 95 NY2d 563, 565 [2000] [citations omitted].) This standard “is ultimately concerned with | 1 | 1 |
People v. Stultzgreen1 sentence2017(Cf. People v Valle, 39 Misc 3d 126[A] , 2013 NY Slip Op 50409 [U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2013] [not reaching state standard where court concluded that federal standard violated].) Here, the court concludes that, even if the defendant did not meet the federal standard, she has met the state standard. 4 In evaluating a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under the State Constitution, a court considers whether the defendant was afforded “meaningful representation.” (People v Henry, 95 NY2d 563, 565 [2000] [citations omitted].) This standard “is ultimately concerned with | 1 | 1 |
People v. Beneventogreen1 sentence2017(Cf. People v Valle, 39 Misc 3d 126[A] , 2013 NY Slip Op 50409 [U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2013] [not reaching state standard where court concluded that federal standard violated].) Here, the court concludes that, even if the defendant did not meet the federal standard, she has met the state standard. 4 In evaluating a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under the State Constitution, a court considers whether the defendant was afforded “meaningful representation.” (People v Henry, 95 NY2d 563, 565 [2000] [citations omitted].) This standard “is ultimately concerned with | 1 | 1 |
People v. Dunngreen1 sentence2017(Cf. People v Valle, 39 Misc 3d 126[A] , 2013 NY Slip Op 50409 [U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2013] [not reaching state standard where court concluded that federal standard violated].) Here, the court concludes that, even if the defendant did not meet the federal standard, she has met the state standard. 4 In evaluating a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under the State Constitution, a court considers whether the defendant was afforded “meaningful representation.” (People v Henry, 95 NY2d 563, 565 [2000] [citations omitted].) This standard “is ultimately concerned with | 1 | 1 |
People v. Baldigreen1 sentence2017(Cf. People v Valle, 39 Misc 3d 126[A] , 2013 NY Slip Op 50409 [U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2013] [not reaching state standard where court concluded that federal standard violated].) Here, the court concludes that, even if the defendant did not meet the federal standard, she has met the state standard. 4 In evaluating a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under the State Constitution, a court considers whether the defendant was afforded “meaningful representation.” (People v Henry, 95 NY2d 563, 565 [2000] [citations omitted].) This standard “is ultimately concerned with | 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. Quinones
green
1 sentence2012In People v Quinones ( 173 AD2d at 396 ), we specifically held that “the testimony of one or all of those who could consent to entry is not in all cases indispensable.” Here, the circumstantial proof offered at the hearing, including the admissions of appellant and the testimony of the building employee, was sufficient to sustain the court’s finding that appellant was in the building without permission. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
People v. Clow
green
1 sentence2004Finally, in view of defendant’s knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of his right to appeal, we decline to review his contention that the sentence was harsh and excessive (see people v Clow, 10 AD 3d 803 [2004]). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Village of Bronxville v. Francis
green
1 sentence1977Thus, there is an "area” rather than a "use” variance involved; consequently, the less onerous requirement of "practical difficulties” applies rather than does the standard of "unnecessary hardship” (see Matter of Village of Bronxville v Francis, 1 AD2d 236 , affd 1 NY2d 839 ). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Village of Bronxville v. Francis
green
1 sentence1977Thus, there is an "area” rather than a "use” variance involved; consequently, the less onerous requirement of "practical difficulties” applies rather than does the standard of "unnecessary hardship” (see Matter of Village of Bronxville v Francis, 1 AD2d 236 , affd 1 NY2d 839 ). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Burt v. . Smith
green
1 sentence1962I see no reason why there should be a different or more onerous rule where the arrest was procured in a civil suit (see Burt v. Smith, 181 N. Y. 1, 5 , supra). | 1 | 1962–1962 |
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.