18 Cited authorities

DaimlerChrysler v. Spitzer
7 N.Y.3d 653 (N.Y. 2006) Cited 227 times
In Spitzer, James Warner bought a new truck manufactured by General Motors Corporation in March 2003. Shortly after acquiring the truck, Warner discovered a transmission problem and attempted to have the problem fixed on five occasions between April and November 2003.
Patrolmen's Benevolent Ass'n v. City of New York
41 N.Y.2d 205 (N.Y. 1976) Cited 408 times
Argued October 12, 1976 Decided December 22, 1976 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, GEORGE STARKE, J. W. Bernard Richland, Corporation Counsel (James G. Greilsheimer and L. Kevin Sheridan of counsel), New York City, for appellant. Frederick R. Livingston, Jay W. Waks and William C. Zifchak, New York City, for respondent. Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General (George D. Zuckerman and Samuel A. Hirshowitz of counsel), New York City, for intervenor
People v. Kinchen
60 N.Y.2d 772 (N.Y. 1983) Cited 261 times 2 Legal Analyses
In Kinchen, the Court of Appeals had held that a claim could not be properly considered where there was no proof in the record with regard to the defendant's allegations.
ATM ONE v. LANDAVERDE
2 N.Y.3d 472 (N.Y. 2004) Cited 140 times
Holding that service is deemed complete upon mailing, an affidavit of service will raise a presumption that proper mailing occurred, and mere denial of receipt is not enough to deny this presumption
People v. Litto
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 5582 (N.Y. 2007) Cited 48 times
Noting that "a prosecutor must show impairment by alcohol to prove a violation of subdivision 1 — resulting in a traffic infraction," and that "[s]ubdivision 1 is a lesser-included offense of subdivisions 2 and 3"
People v. Ballman
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 4870 (N.Y. 2010) Cited 33 times
No. 100. Argued April 29, 2010. decided June 10, 2010. CROSS APPEALS, by permission of the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, entered April 24, 2009. The Appellate Division (1) reversed, on the law, a judgment of the Ontario County Court (Craig J. Doran, J.), which had convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of driving while intoxicated as a felony; (2) vacated defendant's plea of guilty; (3) dismissed
Mowczan v. Bacon
92 N.Y.2d 281 (N.Y. 1998) Cited 41 times
In Mowczan v Bacon (92 NY2d 281), the passenger sued the owner and operator of the vehicle in which he was riding, and they, in turn, brought a third-party action against the owner of the trailer portion of the other vehicle involved in the collision, who was vicariously liable under the Vehicle and Traffic Law, though the plaintiff had not sued him, and was legally foreclosed from doing so because the statute of limitations under the Vehicle and Traffic Law had run.
People v. Robinson
95 N.Y.2d 179 (N.Y. 2000) Cited 30 times
Argued June 6, 2000. Decided July 6, 2000. APPEAL, by permission of an Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, entered October 26, 1999, which modified, as a matter of discretion and in the interest of justice, and, as modified, affirmed a judgment of the Supreme Court (Alvin Schlesinger, J., at pretrial motions; Alfred Donati, Jr., J., at trial), rendered in New York County upon a verdict convicting defendant
People v. Bartholomew
31 Misc. 3d 698 (N.Y. Cnty. Ct. 2011) Cited 6 times
In People v. Bartholomew, 31 Misc.3d 698, 918 N.Y.S.2d 859 [Broome County Ct.2011], the court held that "where proceedings are not recorded by a court stenographer physically present in the courtroom at the time," the appeal must be taken on the non-stenographic track provided by CPL 460.10(3).
People v. Ramsey
42 N.E.3d 221 (N.Y. 2015)
10-16-2015 People v. Norman Ramsey Rivera, J. Granted.
Section 30.1 - Mechanical recording of proceedings in justice courts
N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 30.1 Cited 1 times
The chief administrator of the courts may require the mechanical recording of testimony and of other proceedings in cases in a town or village justice court. The mechanical recording of proceedings in accordance with this rule shall not affect the right of the court or any litigant therein to employ a stenographer to take minutes of such proceedings manually. N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. Tit. 22 § 30.1

The People, Respondent,v.Norman E. Ramsey, Appellant.

18 Cited authorities

In Spitzer, James Warner bought a new truck manufactured by General Motors Corporation in March 2003. Shortly after acquiring the truck, Warner discovered a transmission problem and attempted to have the problem fixed on five occasions between April and November 2003.

In Kinchen, the Court of Appeals had held that a claim could not be properly considered where there was no proof in the record with regard to the defendant's allegations.

Holding that service is deemed complete upon mailing, an affidavit of service will raise a presumption that proper mailing occurred, and mere denial of receipt is not enough to deny this presumption

Noting that "a prosecutor must show impairment by alcohol to prove a violation of subdivision 1 — resulting in a traffic infraction," and that "[s]ubdivision 1 is a lesser-included offense of subdivisions 2 and 3"

In People v. Bartholomew, 31 Misc.3d 698, 918 N.Y.S.2d 859 [Broome County Ct.2011], the court held that "where proceedings are not recorded by a court stenographer physically present in the courtroom at the time," the appeal must be taken on the non-stenographic track provided by CPL 460.10(3).