§Why CasetextPricing

Eileen Malay, Appellant,v.City of Syracuse, et al., Respondents.

Brief

22 Cited authorities

  1. Payne v. Tennessee

    501 U.S. 808 (1991)   Cited 2,608 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that admission of victim impact evidence at death penalty sentencing phase does not per se violate the Eighth Amendment

  2. Matter of Stortecky v. Mazzone

    85 N.Y.2d 518 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 315 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Surrogate has the authority to inquire into the reasonableness of counsel's fee

  3. People v. Bing

    76 N.Y.2d 331 (N.Y. 1990)   Cited 310 times
    In Bing, the New York Court of Appeals held that a criminal defendant, who had been represented by counsel on prior pending unrelated charges, was not deprived of the right to counsel under the State Constitution where, in the absence of counsel, the defendant waived his or her Miranda rights and made statements in response to police questioning on matters unrelated to the prior pending charge.

  4. Andrea v. Arnone

    2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 7862 (N.Y. 2005)   Cited 165 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that New York's savings statute is tolled only during appeals of right

  5. People v. Taylor

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 7911 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 80 times
    Describing defendant's murder of five employees of fast-food restaurant in course of robbery

  6. Robinson Motor Xpress, Inc. v. HSBC Bank, USA

    37 A.D.3d 117 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 40 times
    In Robinson, an account agreement provided that the statements would be mailed to the address provided on the signature card unless that address was subsequently changed by a document executed by an authorized signatory.

  7. Matter of Winston v. Wetlands Bd.

    224 A.D.2d 160 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)   Cited 46 times

    August 19, 1996 Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, Louis A. Barone, J. Kantrowitz Goldhamer, P.C., Chestnut Ridge (Gary S. Graifman of counsel), for appellant. Dennis C. Vacco, Attorney-General, New York City (John H. Carley and Gregory J. Nolan of counsel; Susie Chovev on the brief), for respondent. Sive, Paget Riesel, P.C., New York City (Mark A. Chertok and Steven Russo of counsel), for Village of Scarsdale, intervenor-respondent. ROSENBLATT, J.P. By enacting a "filing system"

  8. Lehman Brothers, Inc. v. Hughes Hubbard Reed

    92 N.Y.2d 1014 (N.Y. 1998)   Cited 34 times

    Argued November 18, 1998 Decided December 22, 1998 Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County, Eileen Bransten, J. Kenneth Reed Wynne, of the Texas Bar, admitted pro hac vice, and Lehman Gikow, P. C., New York City ( David H. Gikow of counsel), for appellants. Hughes Hubbard Reed, L. L. P., New York City ( Theodore V.H. Mayer, John Fellas and Carol E. Remy of counsel), for respondent, pro se. MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. The issue here is whether

  9. Council of the City of New York v. Giuliani

    93 N.Y.2d 60 (N.Y. 1998)   Cited 21 times

    Argued February 16, 1999 Decided March 30, 1998 Elizabeth Dvorkin, for appellants-respondents. Ira A. Finkelstein, for respondents-appellants. Elizabeth Dvorkin, for appellants-respondents. Barbara J. Olshansky, for respondents-appellants. District Council 37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, et al.; Progressive Rainbow Independents for Developing Empowerment (PRIDE), et al.; Community Service Society of New York, et al.; and Fernando Ferrer, et al., amici curiae. Arnold s. Cohen, Long Island City, Arthur A. Baer

  10. Matter of Eckart

    39 N.Y.2d 493 (N.Y. 1976)   Cited 46 times

    Argued March 24, 1976 Decided May 4, 1976 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, LOUIS D. LAURINO, J. George H. Hartman and Emory Gardiner for appellant. Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General (Anthony S. Urso and Samuel A. Hirshowitz of counsel), for intervenor-appellant. Douglas J. Danzig, William P. Laino and Paul D. Montclare for respondents. WACHTLER, J. Julia Eckart died on August 13, 1970, survived by her two children, Charlotte Eckart and

  11. Rule 27 - Motions

    Fed. R. App. P. 27   Cited 273 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Providing that " separate brief supporting or responding to a motion must not be filed"