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 1 courts 1992–2022 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. Pottergreen2 sentences2022With respect to defendant's contention that the court erred in admitting exhibit 18 in evidence, we conclude that "the court did not err in allowing the prosecution to introduce [*2]summaries of other documents that had been introduced into evidence and previously provided to the defense, pursuant to the voluminous writings exception to the best evidence rule" ( People v Hutchings , 142 AD3d 1292 , 1294 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1124 [2016] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see generally People v Potter , 255 AD2d 763, 767 [3d Dept 1998]). 2014We conclude that the summary exhibits were improperly admitted under the voluminous writings exception to the best evidence rule inasmuch as defendant was not provided with the data underlying those exhibits prior to trial (cf. People v Ash, 71 AD3d 688, 689 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 885 [2010]; People v Weinberg, 183 AD2d 932, 934 [1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 977 [1992]; see generally Ed Guth Realty v Gingold, 34 NY2d 440, 452 [1974]), nor were those exhibits based solely upon information already in evidence (cf. People v Potter, 255 AD2d 763, 767 [1998]; People v Ferraioli, 101 AD2d 629, 630-63 | 4 | 4 |
Ed Guth Realty, Inc. v. Gingoldgreen2 sentences2014We conclude that the summary exhibits were improperly admitted under the voluminous writings exception to the best evidence rule inasmuch as defendant was not provided with the data underlying those exhibits prior to trial (cf. People v Ash, 71 AD3d 688, 689 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 885 [2010]; People v Weinberg, 183 AD2d 932, 934 [1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 977 [1992]; see generally Ed Guth Realty v Gingold, 34 NY2d 440, 452 [1974]), nor were those exhibits based solely upon information already in evidence (cf. People v Potter, 255 AD2d 763, 767 [1998]; People v Ferraioli, 101 AD2d 629, 630-63 2014We conclude that the summary exhibits were improperly admitted under the voluminous writings exception to the best evidence rule inasmuch as defendant was not provided with the data underlying those exhibits prior to trial (cf. People v Ash, 71 AD3d 688, 689 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 885 [2010]; People v Weinberg, 183 AD2d 932, 934 [1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 977 [1992]; see generally Ed Guth Realty v Gingold, 34 NY2d 440, 452 [1974]), nor were those exhibits based solely upon information already in evidence (cf. People v Potter, 255 AD2d 763, 767 [1998]; People v Ferraioli, 101 AD2d 629, 630-63 | 3 | 5 |
People v. Arevalogreen2 sentences2014We conclude that the summary exhibits were improperly admitted under the voluminous writings exception to the best evidence rule inasmuch as defendant was not provided with the data underlying those exhibits prior to trial (cf. People v Ash, 71 AD3d 688, 689 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 885 [2010]; People v Weinberg, 183 AD2d 932, 934 [1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 977 [1992]; see generally Ed Guth Realty v Gingold, 34 NY2d 440, 452 [1974]), nor were those exhibits based solely upon information already in evidence (cf. People v Potter, 255 AD2d 763, 767 [1998]; People v Ferraioli, 101 AD2d 629, 630-63 2014We conclude that the summary exhibits were improperly admitted under the voluminous writings exception to the best evidence rule inasmuch as defendant was not provided with the data underlying those exhibits prior to trial (cf. People v Ash, 71 AD3d 688, 689 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 885 [2010]; People v Weinberg, 183 AD2d 932, 934 [1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 977 [1992]; see generally Ed Guth Realty v Gingold, 34 NY2d 440, 452 [1974]), nor were those exhibits based solely upon information already in evidence (cf. People v Potter, 255 AD2d 763, 767 [1998]; People v Ferraioli, 101 AD2d 629, 630-63 | 2 | 3 |
People v. Ferraioligreen2 sentences2014We conclude that the summary exhibits were improperly admitted under the voluminous writings exception to the best evidence rule inasmuch as defendant was not provided with the data underlying those exhibits prior to trial (cf. People v Ash, 71 AD3d 688, 689 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 885 [2010]; People v Weinberg, 183 AD2d 932, 934 [1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 977 [1992]; see generally Ed Guth Realty v Gingold, 34 NY2d 440, 452 [1974]), nor were those exhibits based solely upon information already in evidence (cf. People v Potter, 255 AD2d 763, 767 [1998]; People v Ferraioli, 101 AD2d 629, 630-63 2014We conclude that the summary exhibits were improperly admitted under the voluminous writings exception to the best evidence rule inasmuch as defendant was not provided with the data underlying those exhibits prior to trial (cf. People v Ash, 71 AD3d 688, 689 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 885 [2010]; People v Weinberg, 183 AD2d 932, 934 [1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 977 [1992]; see generally Ed Guth Realty v Gingold, 34 NY2d 440, 452 [1974]), nor were those exhibits based solely upon information already in evidence (cf. People v Potter, 255 AD2d 763, 767 [1998]; People v Ferraioli, 101 AD2d 629, 630-63 | 2 | 3 |
People v. Weinberggreen2 sentences2014We conclude that the summary exhibits were improperly admitted under the voluminous writings exception to the best evidence rule inasmuch as defendant was not provided with the data underlying those exhibits prior to trial (cf. People v Ash, 71 AD3d 688, 689 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 885 [2010]; People v Weinberg, 183 AD2d 932, 934 [1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 977 [1992]; see generally Ed Guth Realty v Gingold, 34 NY2d 440, 452 [1974]), nor were those exhibits based solely upon information already in evidence (cf. People v Potter, 255 AD2d 763, 767 [1998]; People v Ferraioli, 101 AD2d 629, 630-63 2014We conclude that the summary exhibits were improperly admitted under the voluminous writings exception to the best evidence rule inasmuch as defendant was not provided with the data underlying those exhibits prior to trial (cf. People v Ash, 71 AD3d 688, 689 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 885 [2010]; People v Weinberg, 183 AD2d 932, 934 [1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 977 [1992]; see generally Ed Guth Realty v Gingold, 34 NY2d 440, 452 [1974]), nor were those exhibits based solely upon information already in evidence (cf. People v Potter, 255 AD2d 763, 767 [1998]; People v Ferraioli, 101 AD2d 629, 630-63 | 2 | 3 |
| 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. Blackmon
green
2 sentences2014We conclude that the summary exhibits were improperly admitted under the voluminous writings exception to the best evidence rule inasmuch as defendant was not provided with the data underlying those exhibits prior to trial (cf. People v Ash, 71 AD3d 688, 689 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 885 [2010]; People v Weinberg, 183 AD2d 932, 934 [1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 977 [1992]; see generally Ed Guth Realty v Gingold, 34 NY2d 440, 452 [1974]), nor were those exhibits based solely upon information already in evidence (cf. People v Potter, 255 AD2d 763, 767 [1998]; People v Ferraioli, 101 AD2d 629, 630-63 2014We conclude that the summary exhibits were improperly admitted under the voluminous writings exception to the best evidence rule inasmuch as defendant was not provided with the data underlying those exhibits prior to trial (cf. People v Ash, 71 AD3d 688, 689 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 885 [2010]; People v Weinberg, 183 AD2d 932, 934 [1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 977 [1992]; see generally Ed Guth Realty v Gingold, 34 NY2d 440, 452 [1974]), nor were those exhibits based solely upon information already in evidence (cf. People v Potter, 255 AD2d 763, 767 [1998]; People v Ferraioli, 101 AD2d 629, 630-63 | 3 | 2014–2014 |
Briar Hill Apartments Co. v. Teperman
green
2 sentences1996Co. v Teperman, 165 AD2d 519, 521-522 ). 1992Co. v Teperman, 165 AD2d 519 ). | 2 | 1992–1996 |
People v. Fleming
green
1 sentence2022With respect to defendant's contention that the court erred in admitting exhibit 18 in evidence, we conclude that "the court did not err in allowing the prosecution to introduce [*2]summaries of other documents that had been introduced into evidence and previously provided to the defense, pursuant to the voluminous writings exception to the best evidence rule" ( People v Hutchings , 142 AD3d 1292 , 1294 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1124 [2016] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see generally People v Potter , 255 AD2d 763, 767 [3d Dept 1998]). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Hutchings
green
1 sentence2022With respect to defendant's contention that the court erred in admitting exhibit 18 in evidence, we conclude that "the court did not err in allowing the prosecution to introduce [*2]summaries of other documents that had been introduced into evidence and previously provided to the defense, pursuant to the voluminous writings exception to the best evidence rule" ( People v Hutchings , 142 AD3d 1292 , 1294 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1124 [2016] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see generally People v Potter , 255 AD2d 763, 767 [3d Dept 1998]). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.