defendant waived any claim in New York

2020Servicing, Inc. v Arklis , 150 AD3d at 1182 ).

2018Servicing, Inc. v Arklis , 150 AD3d at 1182 ).

1992The defendant waived any claim of error regarding his absence when he failed to object to the questioning procedure (see, People v Torres, 174 AD2d 586 ; People v Gamble, 173 AD2d 555 ; People v Hazzard, 177 AD2d 593 ; People v Grant, 178 AD2d 283 ; People v Bailey, 146 AD2d 788 ).

1991The defendant waived any claim of error regarding his absence when he failed to object to the questioning procedure (see, People v Torres, 174 AD2d 586 ; People v Bailey, 146 AD2d 788 ).

1992The defendant waived any claim of error regarding his absence when he failed to object to the questioning procedure (see, People v Torres, 174 AD2d 586 ; People v Gamble, 173 AD2d 555 ; People v Hazzard, 177 AD2d 593 ; People v Grant, 178 AD2d 283 ; People v Bailey, 146 AD2d 788 ).

1991The defendant waived any claim of error regarding his absence when he failed to object to the questioning procedure (see, People v Torres, 174 AD2d 586 ; People v Bailey, 146 AD2d 788 ).

2026In any event, there was no evidence that either the complainant or the lead detective would have been expected to provide material, noncumulative testimony favorable to the defense, such that an unfavorable inference could have been drawn from these witnesses' failure to testify at trial (<i>see</i> <i>People v Savinon</i>, 100 NY2d 192, 197 ; <i>People v Gonzalez</i>, 68 NY2d 424, 427 ).

2026Defense counsel also extensively cross-examined the officer on the absence of the notes, commented on the issue during summation, and attempted to use the absence to the defendant's advantage by obtaining an adverse inference <span>[*2]</span>charge (<i>see</i> <i>People v Scattareggia</i>, 152 AD2d at 680 ), and the defendant waived any claim that the adverse inference charge as given was insufficient (<i>see</i> <i>People v Whalen</i>, 59 NY2d 273, 280 ).</p> <p>Additionally, the People's failure to call the complainant and investigating detective as witnesses at trial did not inherently dep

2026Defense counsel also extensively cross-examined the officer on the absence of the notes, commented on the issue during summation, and attempted to use the absence to the defendant's advantage by obtaining an adverse inference <span>[*2]</span>charge (<i>see</i> <i>People v Scattareggia</i>, 152 AD2d at 680 ), and the defendant waived any claim that the adverse inference charge as given was insufficient (<i>see</i> <i>People v Whalen</i>, 59 NY2d 273, 280 ).</p> <p>Additionally, the People's failure to call the complainant and investigating detective as witnesses at trial did not inherently dep

2026Defense counsel also extensively cross-examined the officer on the absence of the notes, commented on the issue during summation, and attempted to use the absence to the defendant's advantage by obtaining an adverse inference <span>[*2]</span>charge (<i>see</i> <i>People v Scattareggia</i>, 152 AD2d at 680 ), and the defendant waived any claim that the adverse inference charge as given was insufficient (<i>see</i> <i>People v Whalen</i>, 59 NY2d 273, 280 ).</p> <p>Additionally, the People's failure to call the complainant and investigating detective as witnesses at trial did not inherently dep

2026Defense counsel also extensively cross-examined the officer on the absence of the notes, commented on the issue during summation, and attempted to use the absence to the defendant's advantage by obtaining an adverse inference <span>[*2]</span>charge (<i>see</i> <i>People v Scattareggia</i>, 152 AD2d at 680 ), and the defendant waived any claim that the adverse inference charge as given was insufficient (<i>see</i> <i>People v Whalen</i>, 59 NY2d 273, 280 ).</p> <p>Additionally, the People's failure to call the complainant and investigating detective as witnesses at trial did not inherently dep

2026In any event, there was no evidence that either the complainant or the lead detective would have been expected to provide material, noncumulative testimony favorable to the defense, such that an unfavorable inference could have been drawn from these witnesses' failure to testify at trial (<i>see</i> <i>People v Savinon</i>, 100 NY2d 192, 197 ; <i>People v Gonzalez</i>, 68 NY2d 424, 427 ).

2025The defendant has not made a sufficient showing to warrant reexamination of those issues ( see Northern Blvd Corona, LLC v Northern Blvd Prop., LLC , 181 AD3d 690, 691 ).

2023Thus, this is not a case where a defendant waived any privilege by knowingly speaking openly in front of third parties ( cf. People v Tesh , 124 AD2d 843 , 844 [2d Dept 1986], lv denied 69 NY2d 750 [1987]).

2022The defendant waived any defense based upon the plaintiff's failure to comply with the condition precedent set forth in the mortgage requiring a notice of default, since the defendant did not raise that defense in his answer ( see CPLR 3015[a]; US Bank, N.A. v Rufai , 202 AD3d 716 , 718-719; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Onuogu , 188 AD3d 756, 758 ; US Bank N.A. v Quacoe , 174 AD3d 832 , 833-834).

2022The defendant waived any defense based upon the plaintiff's failure to comply with the condition precedent set forth in the mortgage requiring the provision of a notice of default, since he did not raise that defense in his answer or in any motion for leave to amend his answer ( see CPLR 3015[a]; Caliber Home Loans, Inc. v Squaw , 190 AD3d 926 ; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Akanda , 177 AD3d 718 , 720-721).

2022Thus, the defendant waived any defense of lack of personal jurisdiction ( see OneWest Bank, FSB v Lara , 192 AD3d 695, 696 ; U.S. Rof III Legal Tit.

2019In the present case, by failing to timely challenge King's County's geographical jurisdiction or venue, the defendant waived any challenge on that issue ( see People v Greenberg , 89 NY2d at 556 ; People v Roulhac , 166 AD3d at 1068).

2019The defendant's contention that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to timely challenge the venue of Kings County is without merit, as there can be no deprivation of effective assistance of counsel arising from the failure to make a motion or argument that had little or no chance of success ( see People v Ennis , 11 NY3d 403, 415 ; People v Stultz , 2 NY3d 277, 287 ; [*2]People v Moss , 138 AD3d 761, 762 ).

2019The defendant's contention that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to timely challenge the venue of Kings County is without merit, as there can be no deprivation of effective assistance of counsel arising from the failure to make a motion or argument that had little or no chance of success ( see People v Ennis , 11 NY3d 403, 415 ; People v Stultz , 2 NY3d 277, 287 ; [*2]People v Moss , 138 AD3d 761, 762 ).

2019The defendant's contention that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to timely challenge the venue of Kings County is without merit, as there can be no deprivation of effective assistance of counsel arising from the failure to make a motion or argument that had little or no chance of success ( see People v Ennis , 11 NY3d 403, 415 ; People v Stultz , 2 NY3d 277, 287 ; [*2]People v Moss , 138 AD3d 761, 762 ).

2017Accordingly, the defendant waived any claim that the Supreme Court lacked personal jurisdiction over her in this action (see Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP v Albert, 78 AD3d at 984 ).

2017Moreover, the ministerial act of delivering the exhibit did not constitute a mode of proceedings error or deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see People v Slavik, 277 AD2d 259 [2000]; People v Griffin, 241 AD2d 501 [1997]).

2017Moreover, the ministerial act of delivering the exhibit did not constitute a mode of proceedings error or deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see People v Slavik, 277 AD2d 259 [2000]; People v Griffin, 241 AD2d 501 [1997]).