section 10 right to counsel in New York

2007Assn. v County of Oneida, 78 AD2d 1004 [4th Dept 1980].) Based upon the severance clause in section 10, the legislative purposes, the existing powers of the Health Commissioner and the functionability of the Enabling Act in the absence of the legislative veto, the provision is severable from the remainder of the statute, and even if unconstitutional, will not nullify the remainder of the Enabling Act.

1989Such "take it” or "leave it” opinions are worthless (2641 Concourse Co. v City Univ., 137 Misc 2d 802 , affd on opn below 147 AD2d 379 , supra) at least on a late claim motion where there is no opportunity for cross-examination.

1989Such "take it” or "leave it” opinions are worthless (2641 Concourse Co. v City Univ., 137 Misc 2d 802 , affd on opn below 147 AD2d 379 , supra) at least on a late claim motion where there is no opportunity for cross-examination.

1981We add that plaintiff’s argument that his rights under section 10 of article I of the Constitution of the United States have been violated is without merit (see Weisel v Hagdahl Realty Co., 241 App Div 314, 319-320 ).

1975The effect of CPL 450.20 (subd 2) has twice been considered by appellate tribunals (People v Sabella, 35 NY2d 158 ; People v Underwood, 43 AD2d 800 ) but in neither instance was the constitutional question of double jeopardy squarely presented.

1975The effect of CPL 450.20 (subd 2) has twice been considered by appellate tribunals (People v Sabella, 35 NY2d 158 ; People v Underwood, 43 AD2d 800 ) but in neither instance was the constitutional question of double jeopardy squarely presented.

1966(Cirincione v. State of New York, 50 Misc 2d 18 .) Claimant attempts to offset this difficulty by alleging that the tort complained of (lack of dividing barriers on the parkway) is a continuing one dating back to the original building of the parkway.