|
| |
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.
|
| |
State Courts -
New York - February 2, 2007
|
| |
National Bank of Geneva v. Case Credit Corp., 1529 CA 06-00325,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FOURTH DEPARTMENT, February 2, 2007, Decided , February 2, 2007, Entered
View this case - free
|
|
|
| |
Optic Plus Enters., Ltd. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 1603.1 CA 06-02260,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FOURTH DEPARTMENT, February 2, 2007, Decided , February 2, 2007, Entered
View this case - free
|
Overview: Court properly refused to compel defendants to produce documents they claimed were protected under CPLR 3101(b) by the attorney-client privilege, but as the court was not required to accept their characterization of material as privileged, it erred by not conducting an in camera review of the documents to determine if they were in fact privileged.
|
|
| |
Optic Plus Enters., Ltd. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 1603.2 CA 06-02316,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FOURTH DEPARTMENT, February 2, 2007, Decided , February 2, 2007, Entered
View this case - free
|
|
|
| |
Passero v. Siciliano, 18 CA 06-00622,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FOURTH DEPARTMENT, February 2, 2007, Decided , February 2, 2007, Entered
View this case - free
|
|
|
| |
Paulk v. City of Niagara Falls, 38 CA 06-01937,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FOURTH DEPARTMENT, February 2, 2007, Decided , February 2, 2007, Entered
View this case - free
|
|
|
| |
Pellegrino v. Youll, 42 CA 06-02643,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FOURTH DEPARTMENT, February 2, 2007, Decided , February 2, 2007, Entered
View this case - free
|
|
|
| |
People v. Abron, 1495 KA 05-02809,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FOURTH DEPARTMENT, February 2, 2007, Decided , February 2, 2007, Entered
View this case - free
|
|
|
| |
People v. Adams, 30 KA 05-00535,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FOURTH DEPARTMENT, February 2, 2007, Decided , February 2, 2007, Entered
View this case - free
|
Overview: Due to the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt identifying him as the perpetrator, the trial court did not err in denying him a mistrial on grounds that an eyewitness's identification testimony violated the suppression order. If error was present, such was harmless, as no significant probability existed of an acquittal but for the error.
|
|
| |
People v. Agha, 1653 KA 06-01189,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FOURTH DEPARTMENT, February 2, 2007, Decided , February 2, 2007, Entered
View this case - free
|
Overview: Order granting defendants' suppression motion was reversed because the suppression court reviewed the applications for the pen register orders and the eavesdropping warrants in a "hypertechnical manner" rather than in a commonsense and realistic fashion and failed to pay proper respect to the decisions of the issuing courts.
|
|
| |
People v. Aguayo, 73 KA 04-02759,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FOURTH DEPARTMENT, February 2, 2007, Decided , February 2, 2007, Entered
View this case - free
|
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
