FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1480324061> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1480324061 abstract "The jurisdiction of the New York Court of Appeals has long been shrouded in mystery. When the Court dismisses an appeal, it provides a boilerplate, one-sentence decretal entry, which gives the litigants little, if any, meaningful indication of the Court’s reasons for dismissal. In February 2010, however, the world received a rare glimpse into the Court’s jurisdiction when, in Kachalsky v. Cacace, 925 N.E.2d 80 (N.Y. 2010), Judge Robert Smith dissented from the Court’s sua sponte dismissal of the appeal. Judge Smith voted to retain the appeal, arguing that the Court was using the requirement of “substantiality” to invoke discretion it did not have on an appeal as of right.The Court’s civil jurisdiction generally covers two types of cases: (1) those the Court hears “as of right” pursuant to Civil Practice Law Rules (“CPLR”) 5601 and (2) those for which the Court has granted permission to appeal pursuant to CPLR 5602. In Kachalsky, Judge Smith opined that the definition of “substantiality” had become “so flexible” that it, in effect, conferred on the Court “discretion comparable to that we have in deciding whether to grant permission to appeal under CPLR 5602.”In Kachalsky, Judge Smith pointed to a problematic policy. The Court’s practice of requiring that an appeal as of right pursuant to CPLR 5601(b) raise a “substantial” constitutional question is not loyal to the explicit text of the CPLR or the New York State Constitution. Indeed, to the extent that the requirement invokes discretion for the Court to determine which appeals on constitutional grounds to retain, it subverts the basic structure of both the CPLR and the State Constitution, which contemplate appeals as of right as distinct from appeals that necessitate permission from the Court.The justification for the requirement of “substantiality” is to prevent the creativity of counsel in contriving constitutional questions to gain the right to appeal. However, based upon review of nearly 200 decisions appealed from and dismissed sua sponte on the ground that “no substantial question was directly involved,” this Article argues that the concern about frivolous constitutional claims is overstated. Moreover, existing limitations on appealability and reviewability serve to hinder counsel from inventing frivolous constitutional questions for the sake of an appeal. Thus, this Article proposes the elimination of the “substantiality” requirement, which renders illusory the “right” to appeal on constitutional grounds." @default.
• W1480324061 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1480324061 creator A5085884944 @default.
• W1480324061 date "2011-04-06" @default.
• W1480324061 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W1480324061 title "An Illusory Right to Appeal: Substantial Constitutional Questions at the New York Court of Appeals" @default.
• W1480324061 hasPublicationYear "2011" @default.
• W1480324061 type Work @default.
• W1480324061 sameAs 1480324061 @default.
• W1480324061 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1480324061 crossrefType "posted-content" @default.
• W1480324061 hasAuthorship W1480324061A5085884944 @default.
• W1480324061 hasConcept C136576888 @default.
• W1480324061 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1480324061 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1480324061 hasConcept C2776154427 @default.
• W1480324061 hasConcept C2776862595 @default.
• W1480324061 hasConcept C2776949292 @default.
• W1480324061 hasConcept C2777632292 @default.
• W1480324061 hasConcept C2778145024 @default.
• W1480324061 hasConcept C2778428080 @default.
• W1480324061 hasConcept C2778449503 @default.
• W1480324061 hasConcept C50688660 @default.
• W1480324061 hasConcept C538833194 @default.
• W1480324061 hasConcept C75701414 @default.
• W1480324061 hasConcept C87501996 @default.
• W1480324061 hasConceptScore W1480324061C136576888 @default.
• W1480324061 hasConceptScore W1480324061C17744445 @default.
• W1480324061 hasConceptScore W1480324061C199539241 @default.
• W1480324061 hasConceptScore W1480324061C2776154427 @default.
• W1480324061 hasConceptScore W1480324061C2776862595 @default.
• W1480324061 hasConceptScore W1480324061C2776949292 @default.
• W1480324061 hasConceptScore W1480324061C2777632292 @default.
• W1480324061 hasConceptScore W1480324061C2778145024 @default.
• W1480324061 hasConceptScore W1480324061C2778428080 @default.
• W1480324061 hasConceptScore W1480324061C2778449503 @default.
• W1480324061 hasConceptScore W1480324061C50688660 @default.
• W1480324061 hasConceptScore W1480324061C538833194 @default.
• W1480324061 hasConceptScore W1480324061C75701414 @default.
• W1480324061 hasConceptScore W1480324061C87501996 @default.
• W1480324061 hasLocation W14803240611 @default.
• W1480324061 hasOpenAccess W1480324061 @default.
• W1480324061 hasPrimaryLocation W14803240611 @default.
• W1480324061 hasRelatedWork W140524602 @default.
• W1480324061 hasRelatedWork W152712338 @default.
• W1480324061 hasRelatedWork W2254041903 @default.
• W1480324061 hasRelatedWork W2335610734 @default.
• W1480324061 hasRelatedWork W2964203565 @default.
• W1480324061 hasRelatedWork W2971747884 @default.
• W1480324061 hasRelatedWork W3043886008 @default.
• W1480324061 hasRelatedWork W3121313475 @default.
• W1480324061 hasRelatedWork W3121446480 @default.
• W1480324061 hasRelatedWork W3121821430 @default.
• W1480324061 hasRelatedWork W3122281400 @default.
• W1480324061 hasRelatedWork W3125424325 @default.
• W1480324061 hasRelatedWork W3125452577 @default.
• W1480324061 hasRelatedWork W3125868734 @default.
• W1480324061 hasRelatedWork W3134414792 @default.
• W1480324061 hasRelatedWork W3157993704 @default.
• W1480324061 hasRelatedWork W3179505124 @default.
• W1480324061 hasRelatedWork W63807154 @default.
• W1480324061 hasRelatedWork W3124474262 @default.
• W1480324061 hasRelatedWork W3125656750 @default.
• W1480324061 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1480324061 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1480324061 magId "1480324061" @default.
• W1480324061 workType "article" @default.