importance rule in New York

2009(People v Plevy, 52 NY2d 58, 65 .) Among the specific factors to be considered are the nature of the forum and the importance of the claim in the prior litigation, the incentive and initiative to litigate and the actual extent of litigation, the competence and expertise of counsel, the availability of new evidence, the differences in the applicable law and the foreseeability of future litigation.

1984(People v Plevy, 52 NY2d 58, 65 .) Among the specific factors to be considered are the nature of the forum and the importance of the claim in the prior litigation, the incentive and initiative to litigate and the actual extent of litigation, the competence and expertise of counsel, the availability of new evidence, the differences in the applicable law and the foreseeability of future litigation.

1992As this Court stated in People v Malinsky ( 15 NY2d 86 ): "The importance of the privilege [of nondisclosure] to successful criminal investigation is self-evident but this does not mean it may be successfully invoked in every case.

1975The Court of Appeals reiterated the importance of this rule in People v Malinsky ( 15 NY2d 86 , supra), where the facts were somewhat similar to the instant case.

1933The price for which property is sold by a party is not always admissible in its favor as evidence of its market value. ( Latimer v. Burrows, 163 N.Y. 7 .) It is in effect admitting in his favor proof of his own act or an act to which he is an essential party amounting to self-serving declarations in his own behalf. ( Groves v. Warren, 233 N.Y. 160 .) When property has a market value which can be proved by witnesses who can then and there speak of it, it must be proved by such witnesses. ( Jones v. Morgan, 90 N.Y. 4 , 10 .) The importance of this rule becomes apparent in this case.

1933(Jo nes v. Morgan, 90 N. Y. 4, 10 .) The importance of this rule becomes apparent in this case.

1870Printing and Dyeing Est. v. Fitch, 1 Paige, 97 ), and frequently afterwards recognized the importance of the rule which he had adopted (see cases hereafter cited).

1870And whenever the injunction is issued without the requisite security to indemnify the defendant against such contingent damage, it will be the duty of the court to set aside the injunction, with costs.” The chancellor had previously enjoined the exercise of a sound discretion in granting preliminary injunctions (New York Printing and Dyeing Establishment v. Fitch, 1 Paige, 97 ), and frequently afterwards recognized the importance of the rule which he had adopted (see cases hereafter cited).

2010Simply stated, people may prevaricate, despite the consequences to themselves, to exculpate those they love or fear, to inculpate those they hate or because they are inveterate or pathological liars” (People v Settles, 46 NY2d at 168 ).

2007As the Supreme Court held in Miller (supra), the Second Amendment should be interpreted in light of its prefatory clause, “[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” The individual rights argument diminishes the importance of this clause, particularly the word “militia,” which also appears in contemporaneously enacted provisions of the Constitution and in the Articles of Confederation.

2005Footnote 6: See also Thaxton v Morro , 222 AD2d 955 (3d Dept 1995) (Family Court properly relied on reports and evaluations although ordered without consent of parties as long as court afforded parties opportunity to explain or rebut material contained therein); Anonymous v Anonymous , 34 AD2d 942 (1st Dept 1970) (professional reports may come into evidence without consent; however, trial court can not use information contained therein unless it has been disclosed and accuracy checked during hearing); Krebs v Krebs , 83 AD2d 989 (4th Dept 1981) (trial court erred by relying on reports without

2005Footnote 6: See also Thaxton v Morro , 222 AD2d 955 (3d Dept 1995) (Family Court properly relied on reports and evaluations although ordered without consent of parties as long as court afforded parties opportunity to explain or rebut material contained therein); Anonymous v Anonymous , 34 AD2d 942 (1st Dept 1970) (professional reports may come into evidence without consent; however, trial court can not use information contained therein unless it has been disclosed and accuracy checked during hearing); Krebs v Krebs , 83 AD2d 989 (4th Dept 1981) (trial court erred by relying on reports without

2003“The court’s strong language conveyed to the jury the importance of the principle that defendant’s unsworn, self-serving factual statements were not evidence, and the court did not display bias or express any opinion on the merits of the case” (People v Gonzalez, 277 AD2d 82 [2000]).

1984However, the Grand Jury is an accusatory body whose function is to determine only whether sufficient evidence exists to hold the accused for trial (People v Calbud, Inc., 49 NY2d 389, 394 ) and not whether there exists proof beyond a reasonable doubt to support a conviction (People v Porter, 75 AD2d 901 ).

1984Since a conviction by verdict after trial must be supported by proof beyond a reasonable doubt (CPL 70.20), the importance of the rule at trial is apparent: the trier of fact should not be permitted to convict based upon a mistaken identification and should not be permitted to infer that the accused had a prior arrest record (People v Caserta, supra).

1984However, the Grand Jury is an accusatory body whose function is to determine only whether sufficient evidence exists to hold the accused for trial (People v Calbud, Inc., 49 NY2d 389, 394 ) and not whether there exists proof beyond a reasonable doubt to support a conviction (People v Porter, 75 AD2d 901 ).

1981Contrary to the suggestion of our dissenting brothers Justices Mangano and Titone we, like the court in Taylor , decline to impose any requirement that “petit juries actually chosen must mirror the community and reflect the various distinctive groups in the population” (Taylor v Louisiana, 419 US 522, 538 , supra).

1978The importance of this requirement is best expressed in the seminal case Matter of Bain ( 121 US 1, 10 ): "If it lies within the province of a court to change the charging part of an indictment to suit its own notions of what it ought to have been, or what the grand jury would probably have made it if their attention had been called to suggested changes, the great importance which the common law attaches to an indictment by a grand jury, as a prerequisite to a prisoner’s trial for a crime, and without which the Constitution says 'no person shall be held to answer,’ may be frittered away until

1978In both Stirone and Bain, the Supreme Court concluded that effectuation of the Fifth Amendment protections required the preclusion of substantial variations in an indictment unless approved by a grand jury. 'Any other doctrine would place the rights of the citizen, which were intended to be protected by the constitutional provision, at the mercy or control of the court or prosecuting attorney Ex parte Bain, supra at 13 , 7 S.Ct. at 787 .” The court has mentioned "substantial variations”, and our own CPL 200.70 permits amendment of an indictment if it does not change the theory of prosecution a

1978(People v Arthur, 22 NY2d 325, 329 .) While the fact that a person is represented by counsel in a proceeding unrelated to the charges under investigation is not sufficient to trigger the Arthur rule (People v Hetherington, 27 NY2d 242 ; People v Taylor, 27 NY2d 327 ; People v Ramos, 40 NY2d 610 ; People v Ermo, 61 AD2d 177 ), and while the Arthur rule does not apply to a noncustodial interrogation (People v McKie, 25 NY2d 19 ), the Court of Appeals has repeatedly reiterated the importance of the rule in New York practice.

1978(People v Arthur, 22 NY2d 325, 329 .) While the fact that a person is represented by counsel in a proceeding unrelated to the charges under investigation is not sufficient to trigger the Arthur rule (People v Hetherington, 27 NY2d 242 ; People v Taylor, 27 NY2d 327 ; People v Ramos, 40 NY2d 610 ; People v Ermo, 61 AD2d 177 ), and while the Arthur rule does not apply to a noncustodial interrogation (People v McKie, 25 NY2d 19 ), the Court of Appeals has repeatedly reiterated the importance of the rule in New York practice.

1978(People v Arthur, 22 NY2d 325, 329 .) While the fact that a person is represented by counsel in a proceeding unrelated to the charges under investigation is not sufficient to trigger the Arthur rule (People v Hetherington, 27 NY2d 242 ; People v Taylor, 27 NY2d 327 ; People v Ramos, 40 NY2d 610 ; People v Ermo, 61 AD2d 177 ), and while the Arthur rule does not apply to a noncustodial interrogation (People v McKie, 25 NY2d 19 ), the Court of Appeals has repeatedly reiterated the importance of the rule in New York practice.

1978(People v Arthur, 22 NY2d 325, 329 .) While the fact that a person is represented by counsel in a proceeding unrelated to the charges under investigation is not sufficient to trigger the Arthur rule (People v Hetherington, 27 NY2d 242 ; People v Taylor, 27 NY2d 327 ; People v Ramos, 40 NY2d 610 ; People v Ermo, 61 AD2d 177 ), and while the Arthur rule does not apply to a noncustodial interrogation (People v McKie, 25 NY2d 19 ), the Court of Appeals has repeatedly reiterated the importance of the rule in New York practice.

1978(People v Arthur, 22 NY2d 325, 329 .) While the fact that a person is represented by counsel in a proceeding unrelated to the charges under investigation is not sufficient to trigger the Arthur rule (People v Hetherington, 27 NY2d 242 ; People v Taylor, 27 NY2d 327 ; People v Ramos, 40 NY2d 610 ; People v Ermo, 61 AD2d 177 ), and while the Arthur rule does not apply to a noncustodial interrogation (People v McKie, 25 NY2d 19 ), the Court of Appeals has repeatedly reiterated the importance of the rule in New York practice.

1978(People v Arthur, 22 NY2d 325, 329 .) While the fact that a person is represented by counsel in a proceeding unrelated to the charges under investigation is not sufficient to trigger the Arthur rule (People v Hetherington, 27 NY2d 242 ; People v Taylor, 27 NY2d 327 ; People v Ramos, 40 NY2d 610 ; People v Ermo, 61 AD2d 177 ), and while the Arthur rule does not apply to a noncustodial interrogation (People v McKie, 25 NY2d 19 ), the Court of Appeals has repeatedly reiterated the importance of the rule in New York practice.

1978(See, e.g., People v Hobson, 39 NY2d 479 ; People v Buxton, 44 NY2d 33 .) In Hobson , Chief Judge Breitel emphasized that the Arthur rule is no "mere 'dogmatic claim’ or 'theoretical statement’ ” but is "a rule grounded in this State’s constitutional and statutory guarantees of the privilege against self incrimination, the right to the assistance of counsel, and due process of law”.