properly defense in New York

2017In determining that the People met their burden, the court properly applied the factors set forth in People v Taranovich ( 37 NY2d 442 [1975]; see Decker, 13 NY3d at 15 ), i.e., “(1) the extent of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the nature of the underlying charge; (4) whether or not there has been an extended period of pretrial incarceration; and (5) whether or not there is any indication that the defense has been impaired by reason of the delay” (Taranovich, 37 NY2d at 445 ).

2017In determining that the People met their burden, the court properly applied the factors set forth in People v Taranovich ( 37 NY2d 442 [1975]; see Decker, 13 NY3d at 15 ), i.e., “(1) the extent of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the nature of the underlying charge; (4) whether or not there has been an extended period of pretrial incarceration; and (5) whether or not there is any indication that the defense has been impaired by reason of the delay” (Taranovich, 37 NY2d at 445 ).

2017Inasmuch as unavailability of the declar-ant is a required element for the introduction of a declaration against penal interest (see DiPippo, 27 NY3d at 136-137 ; Brensic, 70 NY2d at 15; People v McFarland, 108 AD3d 1121 , 1122 [2013], lv denied 24 NY3d 1220 [2015]), and exclusion of the statement did not “infringe [ ] on defendant’s weighty interest in presenting exculpatory evidence” (People v Oxley, 64 AD3d 1078, 1084 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 941 [2010]), we conclude that, even under the less exacting standard for declarations offered by a defendant to exculpate himself (see Brensic, 70 NY

2017Inasmuch as unavailability of the declar-ant is a required element for the introduction of a declaration against penal interest (see DiPippo, 27 NY3d at 136-137 ; Brensic, 70 NY2d at 15; People v McFarland, 108 AD3d 1121 , 1122 [2013], lv denied 24 NY3d 1220 [2015]), and exclusion of the statement did not “infringe [ ] on defendant’s weighty interest in presenting exculpatory evidence” (People v Oxley, 64 AD3d 1078, 1084 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 941 [2010]), we conclude that, even under the less exacting standard for declarations offered by a defendant to exculpate himself (see Brensic, 70 NY

2017Inasmuch as unavailability of the declar-ant is a required element for the introduction of a declaration against penal interest (see DiPippo, 27 NY3d at 136-137 ; Brensic, 70 NY2d at 15; People v McFarland, 108 AD3d 1121 , 1122 [2013], lv denied 24 NY3d 1220 [2015]), and exclusion of the statement did not “infringe [ ] on defendant’s weighty interest in presenting exculpatory evidence” (People v Oxley, 64 AD3d 1078, 1084 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 941 [2010]), we conclude that, even under the less exacting standard for declarations offered by a defendant to exculpate himself (see Brensic, 70 NY

2017Inasmuch as unavailability of the declar-ant is a required element for the introduction of a declaration against penal interest (see DiPippo, 27 NY3d at 136-137 ; Brensic, 70 NY2d at 15; People v McFarland, 108 AD3d 1121 , 1122 [2013], lv denied 24 NY3d 1220 [2015]), and exclusion of the statement did not “infringe [ ] on defendant’s weighty interest in presenting exculpatory evidence” (People v Oxley, 64 AD3d 1078, 1084 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 941 [2010]), we conclude that, even under the less exacting standard for declarations offered by a defendant to exculpate himself (see Brensic, 70 NY

2017Inasmuch as unavailability of the declar-ant is a required element for the introduction of a declaration against penal interest (see DiPippo, 27 NY3d at 136-137 ; Brensic, 70 NY2d at 15; People v McFarland, 108 AD3d 1121 , 1122 [2013], lv denied 24 NY3d 1220 [2015]), and exclusion of the statement did not “infringe [ ] on defendant’s weighty interest in presenting exculpatory evidence” (People v Oxley, 64 AD3d 1078, 1084 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 941 [2010]), we conclude that, even under the less exacting standard for declarations offered by a defendant to exculpate himself (see Brensic, 70 NY

2017Inasmuch as unavailability of the declar-ant is a required element for the introduction of a declaration against penal interest (see DiPippo, 27 NY3d at 136-137 ; Brensic, 70 NY2d at 15; People v McFarland, 108 AD3d 1121 , 1122 [2013], lv denied 24 NY3d 1220 [2015]), and exclusion of the statement did not “infringe [ ] on defendant’s weighty interest in presenting exculpatory evidence” (People v Oxley, 64 AD3d 1078, 1084 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 941 [2010]), we conclude that, even under the less exacting standard for declarations offered by a defendant to exculpate himself (see Brensic, 70 NY

2021Additionally, we conclude that the court properly precluded defense counsel from eliciting defendant's alleged exculpatory statements during the testimony of a police officer because the statements were "self-serving" and "constituted inadmissible hearsay" ( People v Hill , 281 AD2d 917, 918 [4th Dept 2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 902 [2001]; see People v Weston , 249 AD2d 496 , 496 [2d Dept 1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 931 [1998]).

2001The court properly precluded defense counsel from questioning the arresting officer concerning self-serving exculpatory statements made by defendant at the time of his arrest because those statements constituted inadmissible hearsay (see, People v Middleton, 247 AD2d 713, 714 , lv denied 92 NY2d 856 ; see also, People v Weston, 249 AD2d 496 , lv denied 92 NY2d 931 ; People v Riddick, 229 AD2d 453, 454 , lv denied 88 NY2d 993 ).

2014Under the circumstances, the court properly applied the doctrine of in pari delicto, “not to favor [the] defendant, but as a matter of public policy” (Janke v Janke, 47 AD2d 445, 450 [1975], affd 39 NY2d 786 [1976]).

2014Under the circumstances, the court properly applied the doctrine of in pari delicto, “not to favor [the] defendant, but as a matter of public policy” (Janke v Janke, 47 AD2d 445, 450 [1975], affd 39 NY2d 786 [1976]).

2024The party seeking the benefit of the doctrine of collateral estoppel must first establish that the identical issue was necessarily decided in the prior action and is determinative in the present action, and second, that the party to be precluded had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the earlier action (Kim v Goldberg, Weprin, Finkel, Goldstein, LLP, 120 AD3d 18, 23 [1st Dept 2014]; see Ladera Partners, LLC v Goldberg, Scudieri & Lindenberg, P.C., 157 AD3d 467 , 467 [1st Dept 2018] [“The court properly applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel to preclude plaintiff from all

2024The doctrine of res judicata provides that “[o]nce a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy” (O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357 [1981]; see Rojas v Romanoff, 186 AD3d 103 , 108 [1st Dept 2020]).

2021Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court, "in determining the sentence to be imposed, penalized [him] for exercising [his] right to a . . . trial" ( People v Garner , 136 AD3d 1374 , 1374 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 997 [2016]; see People v Coapman , 90 AD3d 1681, 1683-1684 [4th Dept 2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 956 [2012]).

2021Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court, "in determining the sentence to be imposed, penalized [him] for exercising [his] right to a . . . trial" ( People v Garner , 136 AD3d 1374 , 1374 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 997 [2016]; see People v Coapman , 90 AD3d 1681, 1683-1684 [4th Dept 2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 956 [2012]).

2021Additionally, we conclude that the court properly precluded defense counsel from eliciting defendant's alleged exculpatory statements during the testimony of a police officer because the statements were "self-serving" and "constituted inadmissible hearsay" ( People v Hill , 281 AD2d 917, 918 [4th Dept 2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 902 [2001]; see People v Weston , 249 AD2d 496 , 496 [2d Dept 1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 931 [1998]).

2018In any event, any perceived error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence, including the testimony from the second officer ( see People v Crimmins , 36 NY2d 230, 240-241 [1975]).

2017Because a “judicial settlement... is final as to all material matters embraced in the accounting and decree,” and here the 57-acre parcel was contemplated by the accounting and decree, the court properly applied the doctrine of res judicata herein (Matter of Zaharis, 148 AD2d 868, 869 [1989], lv dismissed 74 NY2d 792 [1989]; see Zoeller v Lake Shore Sav.

2017“The doctrine of in pari delicto mandates that the courts will not intercede to resolve a dispute between two wrongdoers” (Kirschner v KPMG LLP, 15 NY3d 446, 464 [2010]).

2010Creek, “as assignee[ ] [of World Part’s rights], acquired no greater rights than those of the assignor and took subject to all defenses and counterclaims defendant [ ] possessed against the assignor[ ]” (Caprara v Charles Ct. Assoc., 216 AD2d 722, 723 [1995]; see Madison Liquidity Invs. 119, LLC v Griffith, 57 AD3d 438, 440 [2008]).

2010Creek, “as assignee[ ] [of World Part’s rights], acquired no greater rights than those of the assignor and took subject to all defenses and counterclaims defendant [ ] possessed against the assignor[ ]” (Caprara v Charles Ct. Assoc., 216 AD2d 722, 723 [1995]; see Madison Liquidity Invs. 119, LLC v Griffith, 57 AD3d 438, 440 [2008]).