§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of New York State Office of Victim Services,, Respondent,v.Steven C. Raucci, Appellant, Shelley Raucci, Nonparty-Appellant.

Brief

21 Cited authorities

  1. Smith-Hunter v. Harvey

    95 N.Y.2d 191 (N.Y. 2000)   Cited 349 times
    Holding that a dismissal based on a violation of the right to a speedy trial under CPL 30.30 constitutes "termination of the proceeding in favor of the accused"

  2. Jensen v. General Elec. Co.

    82 N.Y.2d 77 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 147 times
    Holding that when the New York Legislature enacted section 214-c, it intended to abrogate the continuing tort doctrine for claims alleging ongoing toxic torts

  3. Pajak v. Pajak

    56 N.Y.2d 394 (N.Y. 1982)   Cited 173 times
    In Pajak v. Pajak, 56 N.Y.2d 394, a matrimonial action, plaintiff husband commenced an action for divorce on cruel and inhumane treatment grounds.

  4. Bryant v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.

    93 N.Y.2d 592 (N.Y. 1999)   Cited 80 times
    Holding that the proper basis for determining the amount of annual payments is the future, not present, value of a future damages award; reducing a future damages award to its present value, and requiring payment of that discounted award in future installments does not assure that the plaintiff will recover the full amount of future damages.

  5. Enright v. Lilly Co.

    77 N.Y.2d 377 (N.Y. 1991)   Cited 89 times
    Finding no preconception duty, and noting that it is the courts duty to "confine liability within manageable limits."

  6. In re Dutchess County Dept. of Social Ser., v. Day

    96 N.Y.2d 149 (N.Y. 2001)   Cited 62 times

    Decided May 3, 2001. Appeal, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, entered February 28, 2000, which affirmed an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Damian J. Amodeo, J.), denying objections to two orders of that Family Court (Esther R. Furman, H.E.) that directed respondents to pay a total of $4,375 as reimbursement to petitioner for money it expended on behalf of respondents' minor child while

  7. Knight-Ridder v. Greenberg

    70 N.Y.2d 151 (N.Y. 1987)   Cited 81 times
    In Green (27 Cal 3d at 59-62, 609 P2d at 504-506), the Supreme Court of California addressed a question similar to the one before us. Green is pertinent because the California capital punishment statute does not require that the murder be "in furtherance of" the felony.

  8. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Conservation

    71 N.Y.2d 186 (N.Y. 1988)   Cited 68 times
    In Matter of Consolidated Edison Co. v Department of Envtl. Conservation (71 N.Y.2d 186, 192), the Court of Appeals found that in areas of regulation requiring technical expertise, regulations within the "traditional agency role of applying technical expertise to implement legislative goals" should be upheld.

  9. Town of Caroga v. Herms

    62 A.D.3d 1121 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)   Cited 23 times

    No. 505430. May 14, 2009. Appeal from an order and judgment of the Supreme Court (Giardino, J.), entered July 22, 2008 in Fulton County, upon a decision of the court in favor of plaintiff. Cynthia Feathers, Saratoga Springs, for appellant. Girvin Ferlazzo, P.C., Albany (Salvatore D. Ferlazzo of counsel), for respondent. Before: Mercure, J.P., Kavanagh, Stein and McCarthy, JJ. concur. Spain, J. Defendant owns a parcel of real property along the shore of Canada Lake, within the Town of Caroga, Fulton

  10. Alweis v. Evans

    69 N.Y.2d 199 (N.Y. 1987)   Cited 50 times
    In Alweis v Evans (69 N.Y.2d 199, supra), the Court of Appeals looked to its earlier decision in Moynahan v City of New York (205 N.Y. 181) in reconciling the seemingly inconsistent provisions of the Judiciary Law regarding compensation of court reporters.