13 Cited authorities

Matter of Mccormick v. Axelrod
59 N.Y.2d 574 (N.Y. 1983) Cited 544 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding respondents to a stay order in civil contempt where they had not been served with the order, but had previously been "served with all papers [including the stay petition] in [the ongoing] proceeding," because "the party to be held in contempt must have had knowledge of the court's order, although it is not necessary that the order actually have been served upon the party"
People v. Finnegan
85 N.Y.2d 53 (N.Y. 1995) Cited 241 times
In Finnegan, the Court of Appeals refused to read into another section of the VTL a requirement that the police affirmatively take certain steps, reasoning that because the Legislature did not impose such an obligation, the courts should not do so in the Legislature's place. Finnegan, 647 N.E.2d at 760-761.
People v. Boston
75 N.Y.2d 585 (N.Y. 1990) Cited 148 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Boston, defendant purported to waive indictment to attempted depraved indifference murder after he had been indicted for intentional murder and related offenses and without any felony complaint having been filed with respect to the new charge.
Temple Marble v. Union Marble
87 N.Y.2d 574 (N.Y. 1996) Cited 67 times
Holding the franchisor's president who allegedly "directly participated in the unlawful franchise sales" could be held jointly and severally liable for the NYFSA violations
People v. Wood
95 N.Y.2d 509 (N.Y. 2000) Cited 57 times
In Wood we applied the teaching of Hicks, noting that we rely on the court's purpose, not descriptive labels, when determining the nature of contempt for double jeopardy purposes (Wood, 95 N.Y.2d at 513 n. 3, 719 N.Y.S.2d 639, 742 N.E.2d 114).
People v. Graham
55 N.Y.2d 144 (N.Y. 1982) Cited 100 times
Argued January 4, 1982 Decided February 18, 1982 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, RICHARD G. DENZER, J. Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney ( Mark Dwyer, Robert M. Pitler and Bruce Allen of counsel), for appellant. William E. Hellerstein for respondent. FUCHSBERG, J. We are called upon to decide whether the court of first instance in this case was free to refuse defendant's request, made pursuant to CPL 60.45 and 710.70, that it submit
Milbrandt v. Green Co.
79 N.Y.2d 26 (N.Y. 1992) Cited 44 times
In Milbrandt v Green Refractories Co. (79 NY2d 26, 36 [1992]) we held that, where future damages have been discounted to the date of a jury's verdict, the amount so calculated already includes interest up to that date and no further calculation of pre-verdict interest is necessary or appropriate.
Penny Lane v. Suffolk County
191 A.D.2d 19 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993) Cited 15 times
In Penny Lane/East Hampton, Inc. v County of Suffolk (191 AD2d 19, 21-22 [2d Dept., 1993]), the plaintiff sought a declaration that a local law was preempted by state law.
People v. Halper
209 A.D.2d 637 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994) Cited 5 times
November 21, 1994 Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gerges, J.). Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. A temporary order of protection, dated February 5, 1991, and effective until March 6, 1991, was issued by the Criminal Court, Kings County, pursuant to CPL 530.13 ordering the defendant to "[s]tay away from the home, school, business or place of employment" of the complainant and to "[r]efrain from harassing, intimidating, threatening or otherwise interfering" with the complainant. The
In re the Report of the August-September, 1983 Grand Jury III, Term IX
103 A.D.2d 176 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984) Cited 11 times
August 13, 1984 Appeal from the Suffolk County Court, Kenneth K. Rohl, J. Patrick Henry, District Attorney ( Frederick Eisenbud of counsel), appellant pro se. MOLLEN, P.J. The District Attorney of Suffolk County appeals pursuant to CPL 190.90 (subd 2) from an ex parte order of the County Court, Suffolk County, dated March 27, 1984, which, inter alia, directed that a Grand Jury report, prepared pursuant to CPL 190.85 (subd 1, par [c]), be permanently sealed. An August/September, 1983 Suffolk County
Section 500.13 - Content and form of briefs in normal course appeals
N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 500.13
(a) Content. All briefs shall conform to the requirements of section 500.1 of this Part and contain a table of contents, a table of cases and authorities, questions presented, point headings, and, if necessary, a disclosure statement pursuant to section 500.1(f) of this Part. Such disclosure statement shall be included before the table of contents in the party's principal brief. Appellant's brief shall include a statement showing that the court has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and to review

The People, Respondent,v.Steven Baisley, Appellant.

13 Cited authorities

In Boston, defendant purported to waive indictment to attempted depraved indifference murder after he had been indicted for intentional murder and related offenses and without any felony complaint having been filed with respect to the new charge.

Holding the franchisor's president who allegedly "directly participated in the unlawful franchise sales" could be held jointly and severally liable for the NYFSA violations

In Wood we applied the teaching of Hicks, noting that we rely on the court's purpose, not descriptive labels, when determining the nature of contempt for double jeopardy purposes (Wood, 95 N.Y.2d at 513 n. 3, 719 N.Y.S.2d 639, 742 N.E.2d 114).

In Milbrandt v Green Refractories Co. (79 NY2d 26, 36 [1992]) we held that, where future damages have been discounted to the date of a jury's verdict, the amount so calculated already includes interest up to that date and no further calculation of pre-verdict interest is necessary or appropriate.

In Penny Lane/East Hampton, Inc. v County of Suffolk (191 AD2d 19, 21-22 [2d Dept., 1993]), the plaintiff sought a declaration that a local law was preempted by state law.