Affirmed and remanded.

The court affirmed the judgment remanding the case for the court to determine if the contents of the confidential file contained material, exculpatory evidence which would warrant a new trial. The court reversed the judgment on the remaining issues, since defendant had no right to statutorily confidential information, unless the court first determined that it contained material, exculpatory evidence.

The Court reversed the appellate court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

The court reversed the lower court's order, granted the insurer's motion to dismiss the insured's second through fifth causes of action and the demand for attorney fees, and denied the insured's cross motion to dismiss the insurer's affirmative defenses.

Decision affirmed; 8-0 Decision; 1 Judge not participating; 1 Concurrence.

The order of the intermediate appellate court was affirmed.

The judgment that a determination of whether a juvenile committed an act was to be based on a preponderance of the evidence was reversed. The constitutional safeguard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt was required during the adjudicatory stage of a delinquency proceedings, and the New York statute providing to the contrary was unconstitutional.

The judgment affirming the defendant's sentence was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. 6-3 Decision; 2 Concurrences; 2 Dissents.

Judgment reversed. 6-3 decision; 1 dissent.

The order of the intermediate appellate court was affirmed.

The judgment was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Judgment affirmed.

Judgment reversed and case remanded. 9-0 Decision; 2 concurrences in part.

The court reversed and remanded an order of the appellate division, which vacated an order of the lower court granting plaintiff female partner's request for interim support and other relief against defendant male partner. Equity mandated the awarding of interim support to plaintiff.

The Court reversed and remanded and held that the search was unconstitutional since the warrant was not issued by a neutral and detached magistrate and the search did not come within the plain view or automobile exceptions to the warrant requirement nor did the search constitute a search incident to a valid arrest.

The Court reversed the lower appellate court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with the Court's opinion.

The appellate division order was reversed and the city's motion for summary judgment was denied.

The denial of a motion to set aside the punitive damages award was reversed where the Court held that petitioner distributor's conduct was not particularly reprehensible because it only caused minor economic harm and a 500 to 1 ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages was not reasonable.

The Court reversed the decision and held that the lower court erred in applying the compelling necessity standard to determine whether the conditions infringed on respondents' rights. The proper standard was to determine whether the conditions amounted to punishment so as to violate the detainees' due process rights. The conditions did not amount to punishment and served a legitimate governmental purpose in insuring...

The Court reversed petitioner's conviction and remanded the case to the trial court for a determination of whether the facts established a prima facie case for purposeful discrimination in the prosecution's use of peremptory challenges in jury selection; the requirement of proving a systematic pattern of discrimination was overruled.

Order affirmed.

The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's judgment. 5-4 Decision; 1 Concurrence; 1 Dissent.

The supreme court answered the certified question in the negative and returned the case to the court of appeals.

The Court reversed and remanded the judgment holding that the employee was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The judgments for punitive damages were reversed because there was no clear and convincing evidence that defendant insurers' conduct was "despicable." The judgments for compensatory damages were partially reversed, and the case was remanded for liability to be allocated severally among the defendants. The judgment was otherwise affirmed.