New york city criminal courts manual

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository. File information. Structured data. Captions English Add a one-line explanation of what this file represents. You cannot overwrite this file. If the file has been modified from its original state, some details such as the timestamp may not fully reflect those of the original file.

The timestamp is only as accurate as the clock in the camera, and it may be completely wrong. From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository. File information. Structured data. Captions English Add a one-line explanation of what this file represents. A link to a mobile version is provided. Criminal History Records View information about requesting criminal history records, including an application form, filing and pickup instructions, contacts, and answers to frequently asked questions.

Electronic Case Record Tracking Register for free e-mail notification of activity in cases you select to be tracked. Service is availble for Supreme Court civil cases in all counties, some local civil courts, and criminal cases in 13 counties.

Case Records Requests View information on requesting case records from the court clerk, including fees for copies, inspection for free at the clerk's office, and trial transcripts. Criminal Court Calendars Search criminal court calendars by court location, date, and court part or judge's last name. Only those cases with pending future appearances dates are included. New York State Trial Court Decisions View published New York State trial court opinions by date and case name; or search opinions and motions by name, decision date, court, docket number, judge, citation, or keyword.

Not all trial court decisions are published. Online Forms and Filing Fee Information View and download forms and view filing fees for various courts. Some local court forms are included. Do-It-Yourself Forms Use an interactive computer program to fill out forms for use in various courts.

Mineral, Mining Min. Mortgage Mtge. Mountain Mtn. Municipal Mun. Mutual Mut. Naamloze Vennootschap N. National Natl. National Association N. Naval, Navigation Nav. North[ern] N. Number No. Office Off. Optical, Optician Opt. Orchestra Orch. Organi[z,s]ation, Organi[z,s]ing Org. Pacific Pac. Pharmaceutical, Pharmacy Pharm. Philadelphia Phila. Presbyterian Presbyt. Preservation Preserv. Printing Print. Product[ion] Prod. Professional Corporation PC or P. Protestant Prot.

Public Pub. Purchasing Purch. Railroad R. Railway Ry. Rapid Transit R. Recording Rec. Refining Ref. Reformed Refm. Refrigerat[ing, ion] Refrig. Reinsurance Reins. Restaurant Rest. River Riv. Road Rd. Roman Catholic R. Route Rte. Saint St. Savings Sav. School Sch. Securit[y, ies] Sec. Service Serv. Society Socy. South[ern] S. Square Sq. Standard Std. Station Sta. Steamship[s] S. Storage Stor. Street St. Superintendent Supt. Surety Sur. System[s] Sys. Techn[ical, ology, ologies] Tech.

Tele[gram, graph, phone, vision] Tel. Telecommunication[s] Telecom. Terminal Term. Theatrical Theat. Theological Theol. Title Tit. Township Twp.

Transit Tr. Transport[ation] Transp. Treasurer Treas. Tribunal Trib. Unitarian Unit. University Univ. Utilit[y, ies] Util. Valley Val. Vehicle Veh. Vicinity Vic. Village Vil. West[ern] W. New York B. Federal C. Other Reports D. Public Domain Citation A. A public domain citation is assigned by the court or the Reporter of Decisions and is not associated with a particular vendor or a particular medium of publication. The citation formats adopted by these jurisdictions are listed below and the style rule governing these citations is found in section 2.

Supplementary Pamphlet Supp Pamph transcript tr videlicet viz. Current New York Statutes B. Federal Statutes Use abbreviated form within parentheses.

Either full or abbreviated form may be used in running text. Variations may be required in certain titles. Cindy L. Ivy L. La Grove , Respondent.

Immediate , Deceased, Appellant, v St. Spindler , Respondent. John's Queens Hosp. In the Matter of Jessica M. Karen M. In the Matter of the Custody of Judy G. Benjamin G. United Liverpool Faculty Assn. Duffy et al. In the Matter of David K. Wong , Respondent, v Edward J. Mahoney et al. Marcy, Jr. Phase 1, Staten Is. Bluebelt Sys. Newark Grange No. Miller Facilities Corporation et al. Wargold , Also Known as Susan Serlin. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company.

Roger Heasley , Appellant; Hewlett Gibson et al. Rupert White , Respondent. Radiant Gems and Minerals, Inc. Claim No. Jones , Respondent. Goldman et al. Robert G. Lamb, Jr. Riverside Avenue Corporation , Appellant. In the Matter of Omnicon Group Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation. Gary Otterbach et al. Shareholder Derivative Litig. Phoebe D. James T. Towne, Jr. Biscone , Respondent. Biscone In the Matter of Michael V. DeSantis, Sr. Commissioner of N.

State Off. State Commission on Judicial Conduct , Respondent. Warren County Attorney , Respondent. LLC Mega Constr. Azilda A. Sandy G. Hoexter, D. Rubin, D. Enviro Express, Inc. De Sanchez. Ghee , Appellant, v County of Monroe et al. Neuman et al. Weiss , as President of the Welco Dress Co. And Another Action. Francine Heller et al. Encore of Hicksville, Inc. Kadin, Inc. Joseph J. Blake and Associates, Inc.

And a Fourth-Party Action. Weinberg , as Grantor. Smith et al. In the Matter of H. Earl Fullilove et al. Roy Psaty , Deceased, et al. Yudell Realty, Inc. Harnett , as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent. Posner , Appellant. Howard v Warden of Rikers Is. Workers' Compensation Board , Respondent.

Luis F. Plaintiff Luis F. Ortiz was injured while engaged in demolition work at an apartment building being renovated in Brooklyn. Ortiz and his coworkers were taking debris from the building and placing it in a dumpster outside. According to Ortiz, the dumpster was about six feet high, eight feet wide, and 14 feet long. The ledge at the top of the dumpster was about eight inches in width.

After several hours of work, the dumpster was filling up, and Ortiz and his colleagues climbed up it, using footholds built into the side, and began to rearrange the debris inside to make more room. It started to rain, making the surface of the dumpster slippery. Ortiz was injured when, while holding a wooden beam and standing at the top of the dumpster, with at least one foot on the narrow ledge, he lost his balance and fell to the ground.

Defendants moved for summary judgment as to all of plaintiff's Labor Law claims. In his affidavit in support of his cross motion and in opposition to defendants' motion, Ortiz stated that the task he was instructed to carry out required him to stand on the eight-inch ledge while placing heavy debris in open areas of the dumpster. In his deposition testimony, Ortiz recalled that he had one foot on the ledge and one foot on the garbage in the dumpster. In his affidavit in opposition to defendants' motion and in support of his cross motion, Ortiz stated that both feet were on the ledge.

Ortiz challenged the dismissal of his section 1 cause of action, and the denial of his cross motion on that claim. The Appellate Division affirmed, simultaneously granting Ortiz leave to appeal to this Court and certifying the question whether its order was properly made. Defendants cite Toefer v Long Is. However, the present case, with the facts considered in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, is distinguishable from Toefer.

Ortiz's particular task of rearranging the demolition debris and placing additional debris in the dumpster, as he describes it, required him to stand at the top of the dumpster, six feet above the ground, with at least one foot perched on an eight-inch ledge. Moreover, defendants failed to adduce any evidence demonstrating that being in a precarious position such as this was not necessary to the task.

Nor do defendants demonstrate that no safety device of the kind enumerated in section 1 would have prevented his fall. On this record, therefore, we cannot say as a matter of law that equipment of the kind enumerated in section 1 was not necessary to guard plaintiff from the risk of falling from the top of the dumpster.

Consequently, defendants have not demonstrated entitlement to summary judgment. However, we agree with defendants that Ortiz's cross motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

To recover under section 1 , Ortiz must establish that he stood on or near the ledge at the top of the dumpster because it was necessary to do so in order to carry out the task he had been given. While that assertion is enough, in the context of this case and without contradictory evidence from defendants, for plaintiff to ward off summary judgment, it is not sufficient by itself for plaintiff to win summary judgment.

Moreover, to prevail on summary judgment, plaintiff must establish that there is a safety device of the kind enumerated in section 1 that could have prevented his fall, because "liability is contingent upon.

Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to defendants, as we must when we consider plaintiff's summary judgment motion, a question of fact remains regarding whether the task Ortiz was expected to perform created an elevation-related risk of the kind that the safety devices listed in section 1 shield workers from. Order modified, etc. See Broggy v Rockefeller Group, Inc. Narducci v Manhasset Bay Assoc. It is a model intended only to illustrate the rules for drafting an opinion in the citational footnote style.

General Rules for Formulating Summaries 1. Accuracy — A summary of an appellate case should be factually and legally accurate.

It should faithfully track the jurisdictional predicate and procedural posture of the appeal. It will typically comprise more than one sentence and should be formulated with an emphasis on concision and clarity. Tense — Summaries of appeals should be written in the past tense.

Verification — A summary should be verified against the record on appeal whenever possible. Certain courts provide jurisdictional statements that resemble summaries.

These jurisdictional statements are not part of the opinion itself and are not published as part of the opinion. They may be used as a basis for formulating a summary. A summary should, however, be composed in accordance with the Law Reporting Bureau's formulation rules. Consistency — A summary should be consistent with the description of the appeal contained in the opinion and with the court's decretal or ordering paragraph. Place the name of the judge or justice in parentheses following the name of the court.

Structure — The first sentence of a summary contains the type of cause appeal, proceeding, cross appeals, etc. When the opinion involves an original proceeding in that court, the first sentence may also contain a statement of the nature of the proceeding.

The second and any other sentences contain the balance of the information that summaries traditionally have contained, including relevant decretal portions of the appealable paper and of any orders or judgments brought up for review.

Criminal Cases in General — Summaries in criminal cases generally should be formulated in accordance with the following templates: Court of Appeals Cases appeal from an intermediate appellate court : "[First sentence. See Appendix 8 A 8. Samples — Whenever possible use the Sample Forms of Summaries as a template for summaries. If none of the samples squarely addresses the procedural posture of an opinion, adapt the closest sample to the posture presented. The drafter may also use summaries found in prior Official Reports 2d or 3d series volumes for guidance, but should adapt the format of a prior summary to conform to these General Rules and Sample Forms.

Sample Forms of Summaries: Court of Appeals 1. Lynch, J. Ramos, J. The modification consisted of denying that portion of defendant's motion seeking dismissal on federal preemption and primary jurisdiction grounds.

The Appellate Division remanded the matter to Supreme Court for determination of the remaining grounds for defendant's motion. The following question was certified by the Appellate Division: "Was the order of this Court, which modified the order of the Supreme Court, properly made?

Cohen, J. John Sherman, J. Uviller, J. Marlow, J. The County Court had sentenced defendant to a term of five years' probation, to include six months of incarceration in the Dutchess County Jail, directed defendant to pay a fine and administrative fees and to attend a victim impact panel, and required that defendant be placed on an electronic monitor for a period up to one year following his release from jail.

Reargument of Appeal. Reargument of an appeal, taken by permission of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, from an order of that Court, entered April 5, Edmead, J.

The following question was certified by the Appellate Division: "Was the order of this Court, which reversed the order of the Supreme Court, properly made? Sample Forms of Summaries: Appellate Division 1. Kent, J. The order denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment granting him a conversion divorce and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the parties' prenuptial agreement may not serve as a predicate for a conversion divorce.

Emerson, J. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted 1 the motion of defendant County of Suffolk for partial summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint, insofar as asserted against it, as sought to recover damages based upon alleged events which occurred before January 17, , and 2 that branch of the cross motion of defendant Brunswick Hospital Center which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

The order and judgment granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment recognizing and docketing certain foreign country judgments entered in their favor. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiff's cross motion for further discovery. Judgment was entered dismissing the complaint. The judgment was entered upon an order of that court Bruce Wright, J.

McClanahan, J.