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 2 courts 1975–2009 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 |
|---|---|---|
Uniform Firefighters of Cohoes v. City of Cohoesgreen1 sentence2009In determining the extent of process which is due in any specific situation, the court must consider and weigh the nature of the private interest affected, the risk of error under the challenged procedures compared with that of alternative procedures and the interests of the government (see Mathews v Eldridge, 424 US 319, 335 [1976]; Matter of Uniform Firefighters of Co-hoes, Local 2562, IAFF, AFL-CIO v City of Cohoes, 94 NY2d 686, 691 [2000]). | 1 | 1 |
Mathews v. Eldridgegreen1 sentence2009In determining the extent of process which is due in any specific situation, the court must consider and weigh the nature of the private interest affected, the risk of error under the challenged procedures compared with that of alternative procedures and the interests of the government (see Mathews v Eldridge, 424 US 319, 335 [1976]; Matter of Uniform Firefighters of Co-hoes, Local 2562, IAFF, AFL-CIO v City of Cohoes, 94 NY2d 686, 691 [2000]). | 1 | 1 |
Mandelkern v. City of Buffalogreen1 sentence2007Servs., 3 NY3d 498, 505-506 [2004]; see also Mandelkern v City of Buffalo, 64 AD2d 279, 281-282 [1978]). | 1 | 1 |
Felix v. New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Servicesgreen2 sentences2007Servs., 3 NY3d 498, 505-506 [2004]; see also Mandelkern v City of Buffalo, 64 AD2d 279, 281-282 [1978]). 2007Servs., supra). | 1 | 1 |
MATTER OF SWINTON v. Safirgreen1 sentence2005At any time during the probationary period, a probationary employee may be terminated without a pre-termination hearing and without a statement of reasons (see Matter of Swinton v Safir, 93 NY2d 758, 762-763 [1999]; Matter of York v McGuire, 63 NY2d 760 [1984]; Matter of Rossetti-Boerner v Hampton Bays Union Free School Dist., 1 AD3d 367 , 368 [2003]; Matter of Garypie v Incorporated Vil. of Sag Harbor, 158 AD2d 598, 599 [1990]; Matter of Caminiti v New York City Tr. | 1 | 1 |
Garypie v. Inc. Village of Sag Harborgreen1 sentence2005At any time during the probationary period, a probationary employee may be terminated without a pre-termination hearing and without a statement of reasons (see Matter of Swinton v Safir, 93 NY2d 758, 762-763 [1999]; Matter of York v McGuire, 63 NY2d 760 [1984]; Matter of Rossetti-Boerner v Hampton Bays Union Free School Dist., 1 AD3d 367 , 368 [2003]; Matter of Garypie v Incorporated Vil. of Sag Harbor, 158 AD2d 598, 599 [1990]; Matter of Caminiti v New York City Tr. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
York v. McGuire
green
1 sentence2005At any time during the probationary period, a probationary employee may be terminated without a pre-termination hearing and without a statement of reasons (see Matter of Swinton v Safir, 93 NY2d 758, 762-763 [1999]; Matter of York v McGuire, 63 NY2d 760 [1984]; Matter of Rossetti-Boerner v Hampton Bays Union Free School Dist., 1 AD3d 367 , 368 [2003]; Matter of Garypie v Incorporated Vil. of Sag Harbor, 158 AD2d 598, 599 [1990]; Matter of Caminiti v New York City Tr. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
MATTER OF BERGAMINI v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Auth.
green
1 sentence1993Operating Auth., 62 NY2d 897, 899 ). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Breed v. Insurance Co. of North America
green
1 sentence1991Upon review of, inter alia, the hearing testimony and the documentary evidence, we find that it was not the parties’ intent to afford confidential employees such as Leon pre-termination hearing rights (see, Breed v Insurance Co., 46 NY2d 351, 355 ; see also, State of New York v Home Indem. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Batchelder v. Kenton
green
1 sentence1975Counsel can help delineate the issues, present the factual contentions in an orderly manner, conduct cross-examination, and generally ¡safeguard the interest ¡of the recipient.” Mr. Justice Brenkait, concurring in the result on Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471 , supra) took issue with the statement of the majority that it did not then reach or decide the question whether the parolee is entitled to..the assistance ¡of retained counsel or to appointed counsel if he is indigent, said (p. 491): " Goldberg v. Kelly * * * nonetheless plainly dictates that he at least£ must be ¡allowed to retain ¡a | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Morrissey v. Brewer
green
1 sentence1975Counsel can help delineate the issues, present the factual contentions in an orderly manner, conduct cross-examination, and generally ¡safeguard the interest ¡of the recipient.” Mr. Justice Brenkait, concurring in the result on Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471 , supra) took issue with the statement of the majority that it did not then reach or decide the question whether the parolee is entitled to..the assistance ¡of retained counsel or to appointed counsel if he is indigent, said (p. 491): " Goldberg v. Kelly * * * nonetheless plainly dictates that he at least£ must be ¡allowed to retain ¡a | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.