§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent,v.John F. Haggerty, Jr., Appellant, et al., Defendant.

Brief

14 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Crimmins

    36 N.Y.2d 230 (N.Y. 1975)   Cited 5,688 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an error is prejudicial "if an appellate court concludes that there is a significant probability, rather than only a rational possibility, in the particular case that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had it not been for the error or errors which occurred"

  2. People v. Alvino

    71 N.Y.2d 233 (N.Y. 1987)   Cited 1,070 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that evidence of similar uncharged crimes is excluded for policy reasons because it may induce the jury to base a finding of guilt on collateral matters

  3. People v. Rosario

    9 N.Y.2d 286 (N.Y. 1961)   Cited 1,651 times
    Holding that trial court erred by failing to compel prosecution to turn over witnesses' prior statements relating to their trial testimony

  4. Schozer v. Wm. Penn Life Ins. Co.

    84 N.Y.2d 639 (N.Y. 1994)   Cited 193 times
    Holding that the proponent of secondary evidence must preliminarily establish that it "is authentic and correctly reflects the contents of the original"

  5. People v. Joseph

    86 N.Y.2d 565 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 87 times
    Noting "the need for a precise correlation between the undisclosed and disclosed material" to consider the possibility that the documents may be duplicative equivalents, and therefore, holding that "a document that has been lost or destroyed and is therefore no longer available for judicial inspection cannot be deemed the `duplicative equivalent' of Rosario material that has previously been disclosed"

  6. Billingy v. Blagrove

    84 A.D.3d 848 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 35 times

    Nos. 2010-11532, 2010-11538. May 10, 2011. In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schack, J.), dated April 9, 2010, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, and (2) an order of the same court dated October 18, 2010, which denied his motion for leave to reargue and renew. Cheven Keely Hatzis, New York, N.Y. (William B. Stock of counsel), for appellant. Ginsburg Misk

  7. Chamberlain v. Amato

    259 A.D.2d 1048 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)   Cited 23 times

    March 31, 1999 Appeal from Order and Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Bergin, J. — Partnership Law. Order and judgment unanimously reversed on the law with costs and new trial granted in accordance with the following Memorandum: Plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment, entered following a bench trial, dismissing the complaints to enforce a $150,000 promissory note made by Joseph Amato (defendant), to compel defendant to account for certain partnership assets, and to set aside, as fraudulent

  8. People v. Dicks

    100 A.D.3d 528 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 7 times

    2012-11-20 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Randy DICKS, Defendant–Appellant. Law Offices of Douglas G. Rankin, P.C., Brooklyn (Douglas G. Rankin of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Britta Gilmore of counsel), for respondent. TOM Law Offices of Douglas G. Rankin, P.C., Brooklyn (Douglas G. Rankin of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Britta Gilmore of counsel), for respondent. TOM, J.P., ANDRIAS,

  9. People v. Haggerty

    103 A.D.3d 438 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 6 times

    2013-02-7 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John F. HAGGERTY, Jr., et al., Defendants–Appellants. Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, New York (Paul Shechtman of counsel), for appellants. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Vincent Rivellese of counsel), for respondent. MAZZARELLI Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, New York (Paul Shechtman of counsel), for appellants. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Vincent Rivellese of counsel), for respondent. MAZZARELLI, J.P., ACOSTA,

  10. La Rue v. Crandall

    254 A.D.2d 633 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)   Cited 8 times

    October 29, 1998 Appeal from the Family Court of Schenectady County (Reilly, Jr., J.). The principal question on this appeal is whether Family Court erred in finding a material and substantial change in circumstances sufficient to deny petitioner any and all contact or visitation with his children. The parties, whose relationship began when petitioner and respondent were ages 22 and 14, respectively, have two children: Bruce (born in 1984) and Danielle (born in 1988). They separated in 1988 and divorced