 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| People v. Pryce, 16621,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT, January 25, 2007, Decided , January 25, 2007, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| People v. Soriano, 8428, Ind. 65/01,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, January 25, 2007, Decided , January 25, 2007, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for first degree manslaughter was reversed in the interest of justice, CPL 470.15(3)(c), (6)(a) because the trial court's jury instruction on justification, Penal Law § 35.15(2), while not challenged at trial, was erroneous as it improperly stated that the question was one of whether defendant "could have retreated."
|
|||||
| People v. Stewart, 16127,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT, January 25, 2007, Decided , January 25, 2007, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was not entitled to relief on his CPL 440.10 and 440.20 motion to vacate a judgment convicting him of murder in the second degree and grand larceny in the second degree because there had been no change in the law on recklessness and a change regarding depraved indifference to human life had been determined not to apply retroactively.
|
|||||
| People v. Yanas, 15924,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT, January 25, 2007, Decided , January 25, 2007, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court's failure to advise defendant of postrelease supervision (PRS) during his plea hearing rendered defendant's guilty plea involuntary, unknowing, and unintelligent and required reversal of defendant's conviction. Defendant's objection upon being informed of PRS at his sentencing hearing was timely and preserved the issue for review.
|
|||||
| Perez v. Hilarion, 13, Index 108228/04,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, January 25, 2007, Decided , January 25, 2007, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the defendants failed to address the plaintiff's significant disfigurement claim, the trial court properly denied their claim for summary judgment on that issue regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiff's papers.
|
|||||
| Perkow v. Frank W. Winne & Sons, Inc., 501075,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT, January 25, 2007, Decided , January 25, 2007, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Personal jurisdiction was proper against a Sri Lankan manufacturer of a bungee cord based on CPLR 302(a)(3)(ii) and considerations of fair play and substantial justice as a seller and a distributor had a strong interest in litigating their contribution and indemnification claims in New York rather than filing a separate action in Pennsylvania.
|
|||||
| Seaport Park Condominium v. Greater N.Y. Mut. Ins. Co., 9099, Index 117654/04,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, January 25, 2007, Decided , January 25, 2007, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insured's action brought after insurer denied coverage of claim under insurance policy should have been dismissed because insured breached policy condition requiring insured to set damaged property aside for examination in order to determine whether loss was covered. This obligation to preserve property was express condition precedent to recovery.
|
|||||
| Sector Constr., Inc. v. Katsarelias, 63N, Index 121420/00,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, January 25, 2007, Decided , January 25, 2007, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an attorney had no standing to enforce a subrogation agreement between an insurer and clients, as he was neither a party to the agreement nor a third-party beneficiary, and because a referee's determination to apply a contingency fee was supported in the record, the trial court properly upheld the referee's fee determination.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
