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 4 courts 1980–2014 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. Evangelistagreen1 sentence2014Therefore, the People will be given the opportunity to cure this error by “either filing a superseding information or prosecutor’s information.” (See People v Evangelista, 1 Misc 3d 873, 874 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2003].) Thus, the People have 30 days from the date of publication of this decision to provide a superseding information, or a prosecutor’s information, regarding the sole count of the criminal court complaint. | 1 | 1 |
Roxborough Apartments Corp. v. Beckergreen1 sentence2008Corp. v Becker, 11 Misc 3d at 100); however, I agree with the trial court’s determination that even if respondent’s violation was considered curable, he did not succeed in establishing any true intent to undertake such a cure in good faith. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Rogeliogreen1 sentence2000Therefore, the closure issue is unpreserved for our review, and this Court should decline to reach it in the interest of justice (People v Graves, 85 NY2d 1024, 1027 ; see also, People v Rogelio, 79 NY2d 843 ; People v Cobos, supra, at 802 ). | 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. Foster
green
1 sentence2005This court has found two appellate level cases that hold that a timely objection to disqualify a juror is required during jury selection, otherwise no judgment would be safe from attack (see, People v Wales, 138 AD2d 766 [3d Dept 1988], supra; People v Foster, 100 AD2d 200 [2d Dept 1984]). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Monter v. McGinity
green
2 sentences2005A question of law is preserved for appellate review when the trial court is apprised of the objection and afforded an opportunity to cure the error (People v Wales, 138 AD2d 766 [3d Dept 1988]; CPL 470.05 [2]). 2005This court has found two appellate level cases that hold that a timely objection to disqualify a juror is required during jury selection, otherwise no judgment would be safe from attack (see, People v Wales, 138 AD2d 766 [3d Dept 1988], supra; People v Foster, 100 AD2d 200 [2d Dept 1984]). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
People v. Graves
green
1 sentence2000Therefore, the closure issue is unpreserved for our review, and this Court should decline to reach it in the interest of justice (People v Graves, 85 NY2d 1024, 1027 ; see also, People v Rogelio, 79 NY2d 843 ; People v Cobos, supra, at 802 ). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
People v. Cobos
green
1 sentence2000Therefore, the closure issue is unpreserved for our review, and this Court should decline to reach it in the interest of justice (People v Graves, 85 NY2d 1024, 1027 ; see also, People v Rogelio, 79 NY2d 843 ; People v Cobos, supra, at 802 ). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
People v. Autry
green
1 sentence1993While the court’s use of a "two inference” instruction has been criticized (see, e.g., People v Stinson, 186 AD2d 23, 25 ), in the present case defendant’s failure at trial to register an objection deprived the trial court of an opportunity to cure the error, thus failing to preserve the claim (People v Autry, 75 NY2d 836 ). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
People v. Stinson
green
1 sentence1993While the court’s use of a "two inference” instruction has been criticized (see, e.g., People v Stinson, 186 AD2d 23, 25 ), in the present case defendant’s failure at trial to register an objection deprived the trial court of an opportunity to cure the error, thus failing to preserve the claim (People v Autry, 75 NY2d 836 ). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Fraydun Enterprises v. Ettinger
neutral
1 sentence1980Consistent with the mandate of Fraydun Enterprises v Ettinger 1 ( 91 Misc 2d 119 ), landlord has given tenant an opportunity to cure the violation of the lease by ejecting her companion or by bringing him within the ambit of her immediate family (presumably through marriage or adoption) . | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.