 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Sawyer, 100309,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT, February 1, 2007, Decided , February 1, 2007, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Proposed resentence of defendant following conviction of criminal possession of controlled substance in the second degree was affirmed, as the county court considered the seriousness of the underlying crime and defendant's criminal history and acknowledged defendant's progress and behavior while in prison.
|
|||||
| People v. Spear, 16292,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT, February 1, 2007, Decided , February 1, 2007, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As defendant executed a waiver of right to appeal limited to his first degree contempt conviction, he relinquished claim that sentence for that conviction should have been reduced in interest of justice. Appellate court was not persuaded by defendant's assertion that the resentences imposed on the probation violations were harsh and excessive.
|
|||||
| People v. Starks, 15721,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT, February 1, 2007, Decided , February 1, 2007, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a showup was both reasonable and not unduly suggestive, and spontaneous statements were admissible regardless of Miranda, suppression of both was unwarranted. Further, given the sufficiency of the identification and physical evidence, and without the need for a defense expert, defendant's firearms possession convictions were upheld.
|
|||||
| People v. Turner, 16687,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT, February 1, 2007, Decided , February 1, 2007, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant's race and clothes were consistent with the victim's description of the perpetrator, he was located close in time and proximity to the crime scene, and he was openly using a cell phone that matched the victim's, there was probable cause to arrest defendant for second-degree burglary and petit larceny.
|
|||||
| People v. Umali, 108, Ind. 2489/03,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, February 1, 2007, Decided , February 1, 2007, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As the evidence presented against defendant supported his first-degree manslaughter conviction, the People presented ample evidence to disprove a justification defense, and the only apparent neutral witness supported the People's position, such was upheld on appeal. Further, no basis existed to reduce the sentence imposed.
|
|||||
| Posada v. Pelaez, 110, Index 106387/04,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, February 1, 2007, Decided , February 1, 2007, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Sheets v. Liberty Alliances, LLC, 116N, Index 600487/05,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, February 1, 2007, Decided , February 1, 2007, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order was modified to vacate note of issue under 22 NYCRR 202.12(c)(2), and 202.21 and to grant LLC leave to amend answer since LLC's delay was not unreasonable in that it did not move until plaintiffs' supplemental expert disclosure transformed its suspicion of fraud into demonstrable claim in large part provable by plaintiffs' expert's opinion.
|
|||||
| Steele v. Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 9717-, 9717A, Index 21445/04,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, February 1, 2007, Decided , February 1, 2007, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Accident victim was entitled to an order for leave to commence an action against the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation as the victim's application for leave to sue was brought within three years of her reaching majority and only after she had made all reasonable efforts to ascertain the identity of the owner and operator of a van.
|
|||||
| Villanueva v. Southeast Grand St. Guild Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc., 9622, Index 29944/02,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, February 1, 2007, Decided , February 1, 2007, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When plaintiff had received workers' compensation from his general employer, he was barred under Workers' Compensation Law § 29(6) from recovering in an action against defendant because defendant, by establishing that it directed and controlled plaintiff on a daily basis, had shown that it was plaintiff's special employer.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
