rationale behind rule in New York

2014Turning to the second prong, the issue is whether Lieutenant Hearle is “united in interest” with the City, and whether he can be charged with such notice of the action that he will not be prejudiced in maintaining his defense on the merits (see LeBlanc v Skinner, 103 AD3d at 209-210; Matter of Parker v Port Auth. of NY. & N.J., 113 AD2d 763, 765 [2d Dept 1985], citing Connell v Hayden, 83 AD2d 30 [1981] [“The rationale behind this exception is that where the two defendants are united in interest their defenses will be the same and they will either stand or fall together with respect to plainti

1994Timely service upon one of two such defendants gives sufficient notice to enable him to investigate all the defenses which are available to both defendants within the period of limitations” (Connell v Hayden, 83 AD2d 30, 41 ; see, Scheff v St.

2023Strict liability for damages arising from the vicious propensities and vicious acts of an animal has been extended to a person who, although not its owner, harbors the animal ( see Molloy v Starin , 191 NY 21, 28 ; Brice v Bauer , 108 NY 428 ; Matthew H. v County of Nassau , 131 AD3d at 144 ).

2023Strict liability for damages arising from the vicious propensities and vicious acts of an animal has been extended to a person who, although not its owner, harbors the animal ( see Molloy v Starin , 191 NY 21, 28 ; Brice v Bauer , 108 NY 428 ; Matthew H. v County of Nassau , 131 AD3d at 144 ).

2023Strict liability for damages arising from the vicious propensities and vicious acts of an animal has been extended to a person who, although not its owner, harbors the animal ( see Molloy v Starin , 191 NY 21, 28 ; Brice v Bauer , 108 NY 428 ; Matthew H. v County of Nassau , 131 AD3d at 144 ).

2017Research, Inc., 73 F3d at 469 ).

2011Group, 5 Misc 3d 1008[A] , 2004 NY Slip Op 51273[U] [Sup Ct, Kings County 2004], affd 27 AD3d 609 [2d Dept 2006]).

2010The rationale behind this rule is that each person who repeats the defamatory statement is responsible for the resulting damages (see Schoepflin, 162 NY at 18 ).

2004First, the statute must provide sufficient'notice of what conduct is prohibited; second, the statute must not be written in such a manner as to permit or encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” (People v Bright, supra at 382 .) With respect to the first prong, the rationale behind the requirement that a penal statute provide sufficient notice is the notion “that no man shall be held criminally responsible for conduct which he could not reasonably .understand to be proscribed.” (I d. [internal quotation marks omitted], citing United States v Harriss, 347 US 612, 617 [1954].) For th

2004First, the statute must provide sufficient'notice of what conduct is prohibited; second, the statute must not be written in such a manner as to permit or encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” (People v Bright, supra at 382 .) With respect to the first prong, the rationale behind the requirement that a penal statute provide sufficient notice is the notion “that no man shall be held criminally responsible for conduct which he could not reasonably .understand to be proscribed.” (I d. [internal quotation marks omitted], citing United States v Harriss, 347 US 612, 617 [1954].) For th

2004(See People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233 [1987].) The rationale behind this rule is to prevent a jury from drawing the impermissible inference that since the defendant has done something in the past, he must be guilty presently.

2004(See People v Alvino, supra.) A determination of the admission of such evidence as per Molineux is a question of law.

1997Auth., 121 AD2d 425 ; Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C5001:2, at 358). 4 The rationale behind the rule is that compensatory damages are unliquidated (Zegman v State of New York, 99 Misc 2d 473 ), not easily quantified and not easily divided into specific time periods (see, McIntosh v Irving Trust Co., 873 F Supp 872 ).

1997In determining whether to award preverdict interest “[i]t is not the theory of the claim that controls” (Loeb v Teitelbaum, 112 Misc 2d 1039, 1041 ; see also, Alkinburgh v Glessing, 240 AD2d 904 ).

1997Auth., 121 AD2d 425 ; Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C5001:2, at 358). 4 The rationale behind the rule is that compensatory damages are unliquidated (Zegman v State of New York, 99 Misc 2d 473 ), not easily quantified and not easily divided into specific time periods (see, McIntosh v Irving Trust Co., 873 F Supp 872 ).

1997Auth., 121 AD2d 425 ; Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C5001:2, at 358). 4 The rationale behind the rule is that compensatory damages are unliquidated (Zegman v State of New York, 99 Misc 2d 473 ), not easily quantified and not easily divided into specific time periods (see, McIntosh v Irving Trust Co., 873 F Supp 872 ).

1995The rationale behind this principle is that one may not receive the benefits of a judgment or order and at the same time challenge it by seeking appellate review (see, Cohen v Cohen, 3 NY2d 339, 346 ).

1995First, the rationale behind the presumption, as expressed by its sponsors, is that the Legislature did not believe that persons transporting dealership quantities of contraband were likely to drive around with innocent friends or that they would pick up strangers (see, People v Leyva, 38 NY2d 160, 166-167 , citing 1972 Interim Report of Temp St Commn to Evaluate Drug Laws, NY Legis Doc No. 10, at 69; Donnino, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 39, Penal Law § 200.25, at 45).

1993Briefly stated, the holding of Houston is that because of the unique difficulties facing prison pro se litigants, who "cannot take the steps other litigants can take to monitor the processing of their notices of appeal” ( 487 US, at 270 ) — or, pursuant to Dory, other time-critical legal documents — filing of such documents is complete when they are turned over by the inmate to those prison officials responsible for placing them in the mail. 2 The rationale behind this rule and its reasonableness under the language of the applicable Federal statutes are fully set forth in the decisions cited a