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 1995–2024 2 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. Buiegreen2 sentences2024Moreover, "[i]n cases involving statements admitted pursuant to hearsay exceptions where the declarant has also testified in court, this Court has consistently not only permitted the use of the statements, but has also cited the declarant's presence on the witness stand as additional justification for the allowance because of the opportunity to verify and test the statements' trustworthiness" ( People v Buie , 86 NY2d 501, 512 [1995]). 2024Moreover, "[i]n cases involving statements admitted pursuant to hearsay exceptions where the declarant has also testified in court, this Court has consistently not only permitted the use of the statements, but has also cited the declarant's presence on the witness stand as additional justification for the allowance because of the opportunity to verify and test the statements' trustworthiness" ( People v Buie , 86 NY2d 501, 512 [1995]). | 2 | 5 |
People v. Robinsongreen1 sentence2016The victim was clearly describing events unfolding before her ( see People v Vasquez , 88 NY2d 561, 575-577 [1996]): in the first call, the victim stated that defendant was in front of the victim's window "right now" making threats against her; in the second call, the victim stated that defendant was "banging on [the victim's] front door." The calls were sufficiently corroborated by the testimony at trial of the victim ( see People v Buie, 86 NY2d at 512 ), "giving the defendant the opportunity to verify and test the statements' trustworthiness as an added assurance of reliability" ( People v | 1 | 1 |
People v. Taylorgreen1 sentence2016The victim was clearly describing events unfolding before her ( see People v Vasquez , 88 NY2d 561, 575-577 [1996]): in the first call, the victim stated that defendant was in front of the victim's window "right now" making threats against her; in the second call, the victim stated that defendant was "banging on [the victim's] front door." The calls were sufficiently corroborated by the testimony at trial of the victim ( see People v Buie, 86 NY2d at 512 ), "giving the defendant the opportunity to verify and test the statements' trustworthiness as an added assurance of reliability" ( People v | 1 | 1 |
People v. Vasquezgreen1 sentence2016The victim was clearly describing events unfolding before her ( see People v Vasquez , 88 NY2d 561, 575-577 [1996]): in the first call, the victim stated that defendant was in front of the victim's window "right now" making threats against her; in the second call, the victim stated that defendant was "banging on [the victim's] front door." The calls were sufficiently corroborated by the testimony at trial of the victim ( see People v Buie, 86 NY2d at 512 ), "giving the defendant the opportunity to verify and test the statements' trustworthiness as an added assurance of reliability" ( People v | 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. Suitte
green
1 sentence1997The sentence imposed by the court was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Letendre v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.
green
2 sentences1995Co. , 21 N.Y.2d 518 ). 1995Co., 21 NY2d 518 ). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
People v. Caviness
green
2 sentences1995In cases involving statements admitted pursuant to hearsay exceptions where the declarant has also testified in court, this Court has consistently not only permitted the use of the statements, but has also cited the declarant's presence on the witness stand as additional justification for the allowance because of the opportunity to verify and test the statements' trustworthiness ( see , Matter of Danny R. , 50 N.Y.2d 1026, 1028 ; People v Caviness , 38 N.Y.2d 227, 232 , supra; Letendre v Hartford Acc. & Indem. 1995In cases involving statements admitted pursuant to hearsay exceptions where the declarant has also testified in court, this Court has consistently not only permitted the use of the statements, but has also cited the declarant’s presence on the witness stand as additional justification for the allowance because of the opportunity to verify and test the statements’ trustworthiness (see, Matter of Danny R., 50 NY2d 1026, 1028 ; People v Caviness, 38 NY2d 227, 232 , supra; Letendre v Hartford Acc. & Indent. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
In re Danny R.
green
2 sentences1995In cases involving statements admitted pursuant to hearsay exceptions where the declarant has also testified in court, this Court has consistently not only permitted the use of the statements, but has also cited the declarant's presence on the witness stand as additional justification for the allowance because of the opportunity to verify and test the statements' trustworthiness ( see , Matter of Danny R. , 50 N.Y.2d 1026, 1028 ; People v Caviness , 38 N.Y.2d 227, 232 , supra; Letendre v Hartford Acc. & Indem. 1995In cases involving statements admitted pursuant to hearsay exceptions where the declarant has also testified in court, this Court has consistently not only permitted the use of the statements, but has also cited the declarant’s presence on the witness stand as additional justification for the allowance because of the opportunity to verify and test the statements’ trustworthiness (see, Matter of Danny R., 50 NY2d 1026, 1028 ; People v Caviness, 38 NY2d 227, 232 , supra; Letendre v Hartford Acc. & Indent. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.