impact error in New York

2025Co. , 200 AD3d 890 , 891). ( Carrington v Northwell Health , — AD3d —, 2025 NY Slip Op 00079, *1 [2d Dept 2025].) This Court was unable to locate authority regarding the impact of a bar association's President's duties on his legal practice in terms of meeting deadlines, but does note the authority that illness on the part of an attorney may be considered in determining whether to excuse a delay.

2025Co. , 200 AD3d 890 , 891). ( Carrington v Northwell Health , — AD3d &mdash, 2025 NY Slip Op 00079, *1 [2d Dept 2025].) This Court was unable to locate authority regarding the impact of a bar association's President's duties on his legal practice in terms of meeting deadlines, but does note the authority that illness on the part of an attorney may be considered in determining whether to excuse a delay.

2020Although it is well settled that "'a court may take judicial notice of facts which are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to easily accessible sources of undisputable accuracy'" ( Hamilton v Miller , 23 NY3d 592, 603 [2014], quoting People v Jones , 73 NY2d 427, 431 [1989]), judicial notice of a fact is improper when it is "from a hearsay source or from unidentifiable or nonindisputable sources outside the record or at a time subsequent to the close of testimony" ( People v Jones , 73 NY2d at 432 ; see CRG at Arnot Mall, Inc. v Feehan , 177 AD3d 1135 , 1137 [2019] [stati

2020Although it is well settled that "'a court may take judicial notice of facts which are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to easily accessible sources of undisputable accuracy'" ( Hamilton v Miller , 23 NY3d 592, 603 [2014], quoting People v Jones , 73 NY2d 427, 431 [1989]), judicial notice of a fact is improper when it is "from a hearsay source or from unidentifiable or nonindisputable sources outside the record or at a time subsequent to the close of testimony" ( People v Jones , 73 NY2d at 432 ; see CRG at Arnot Mall, Inc. v Feehan , 177 AD3d 1135 , 1137 [2019] [stati

2020Although it is well settled that "'a court may take judicial notice of facts which are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to easily accessible sources of undisputable accuracy'" ( Hamilton v Miller , 23 NY3d 592, 603 [2014], quoting People v Jones , 73 NY2d 427, 431 [1989]), judicial notice of a fact is improper when it is "from a hearsay source or from unidentifiable or nonindisputable sources outside the record or at a time subsequent to the close of testimony" ( People v Jones , 73 NY2d at 432 ; see CRG at Arnot Mall, Inc. v Feehan , 177 AD3d 1135 , 1137 [2019] [stati

2020Although it is well settled that "'a court may take judicial notice of facts which are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to easily accessible sources of undisputable accuracy'" ( Hamilton v Miller , 23 NY3d 592, 603 [2014], quoting People v Jones , 73 NY2d 427, 431 [1989]), judicial notice of a fact is improper when it is "from a hearsay source or from unidentifiable or nonindisputable sources outside the record or at a time subsequent to the close of testimony" ( People v Jones , 73 NY2d at 432 ; see CRG at Arnot Mall, Inc. v Feehan , 177 AD3d 1135 , 1137 [2019] [stati

2014Accordingly, defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of his plea is foreclosed by his valid waiver of appeal (see People v Osgood, 111 AD3d at 1030; People v Durham, 110 AD3d 1145, 1145 [2013]).

2014Accordingly, defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of his plea is foreclosed by his valid waiver of appeal (see People v Osgood, 111 AD3d at 1030; People v Durham, 110 AD3d 1145, 1145 [2013]).

2014Initially, we are unpersuaded by defendant’s challenge to the validity of his appeal waiver; County Court adequately informed him that his right to appeal was separate from the other rights automatically forfeited upon a guilty plea, the written appeal waiver he executed in open court similarly informed him of that fact, and he was provided with ample time to confer with counsel to ensure that he fully understood the impact of his waiver (see People v Campbell, 114 AD3d 996, 997 [2014]; People v Osgood, 111 AD3d 1029 , 1030 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1089 [2014]).

2014Initially, we are unpersuaded by defendant’s challenge to the validity of his appeal waiver; County Court adequately informed him that his right to appeal was separate from the other rights automatically forfeited upon a guilty plea, the written appeal waiver he executed in open court similarly informed him of that fact, and he was provided with ample time to confer with counsel to ensure that he fully understood the impact of his waiver (see People v Campbell, 114 AD3d 996, 997 [2014]; People v Osgood, 111 AD3d 1029 , 1030 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1089 [2014]).

2014Initially, we are unpersuaded by defendant’s challenge to the validity of his appeal waiver; County Court adequately informed him that his right to appeal was separate from the other rights automatically forfeited upon a guilty plea, the written appeal waiver he executed in open court similarly informed him of that fact, and he was provided with ample time to confer with counsel to ensure that he fully understood the impact of his waiver (see People v Campbell, 114 AD3d 996, 997 [2014]; People v Osgood, 111 AD3d 1029 , 1030 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1089 [2014]).

2014Initially, we are unpersuaded by defendant’s challenge to the validity of his appeal waiver; County Court adequately informed him that his right to appeal was separate from the other rights automatically forfeited upon a guilty plea, the written appeal waiver he executed in open court similarly informed him of that fact, and he was provided with ample time to confer with counsel to ensure that he fully understood the impact of his waiver (see People v Campbell, 114 AD3d 996, 997 [2014]; People v Osgood, 111 AD3d 1029 , 1030 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1089 [2014]).

2026Indeed, the Court of Appeals in Hoffman v Parade Publs . ( 15 NY3d 285 [2010]), adopted an impact test for nonresidents who seek the protection of the City HRL and found that test "relatively simple for courts to apply and litigants to follow, leads to predictable results, and confines the protections of the City HRL to those who are meant to be protected—those who work in the city" ( id . at 291; see also Vangas v Montefiore Med.

2025Indeed, the Hoffman Court held that "the impact requirement does not exclude all nonresidents from [the] protection" of the Human Rights Law ( 15 NY3d 285, 290 [2010]).

2026Ctr. , 823 F3d 174, 182 [2d Cir 2016]).

2026Thus, the three-year delay, during which R.G. died, prejudiced defendant to the benefit of the prosecution.</p> <p>While the dissent would remand this appeal for a fact-finding hearing rather than decide defendant's motion to dismiss today, this approach would unnecessarily prolong this proceeding and give the prosecution an unwarranted second opportunity to marshal facts where they already failed to meet their threshold burden of "rais[ing] a factual dispute on a material point" (<i>see </i>dissenting op at 4-5, citing <i>People v Gruden</i>, 42 NY2d 214, 215 [1977] [holding, in a statutory s

2025Geer v Common Council of Troy , 82 NY 575, 576 [1880] ["We do not decide mere abstract questions from the determination of which no practical result can follow"]).

2025Geer v Common Council of Troy , 82 NY 575, 576 [1880] ["We do not decide mere abstract questions from the determination of which no practical result can follow"]).

2025In adopting the slight impact rule, the Comstock Court again noted "the practical consideration that where there has been no physical contact there is danger that fictitious claims may be fabricated" (257 NY at 239).

2025In adopting the slight impact rule, the Comstock Court again noted "the practical consideration that where there has been no physical contact there is danger that fictitious claims may be fabricated" (257 NY at 239).

2025The impact an error from an expired permanency hearing order might have in subsequent permanency hearings is not only entirely speculative, but the potential resolution of that error—long after its occurrence—is not an "immediate consequence" of the underlying order that would "directly affect[ ]" the rights of the parties ( Matter of Hearst Corp. , 50 NY2d at 714; see People ex rel.

2025The impact an error from an expired permanency hearing order might have in subsequent permanency hearings is not only entirely speculative, but the potential resolution of that error—long after its occurrence—is not an "immediate consequence" of the underlying order that would "directly affect[ ]" the rights of the parties ( Matter of Hearst Corp. , 50 NY2d at 714 ; see People ex rel.

2024Chau v Donovan, 357 F Supp 3d 276, 283-284 [SD NY 2019]; Anderson v HotelsAB, LLC, 2015 WL 5008771 , *3-4, 2015 US Dist LEXIS 111820 , *10-12 [SD NY, Aug. 24, 2015, No. 15CV712 (LTS-JLC)]). -3- -4- No. 20 The Second Circuit reserved decision on plaintiff’s appeal and certified the following question to this Court: “Whether a nonresident plaintiff not yet employed in New York City or State satisfies the impact requirement of the New York City Human Rights Law or the New York State Human Rights Law if the plaintiff pleads and later proves that an employer deprived the plaintiff of a New York Cit

2024Relevant factors include the impact of our rule on parties to a potential acquisition, whether imputing jurisdiction fairly reflects the reasonable assumptions and expectations of the parties to such transactions, whether doing so induces responsible parties to internalize responsibility for risks they create, and the impact of imputing jurisdiction on those injured by a predecessor’s acts (see Grant-Howard, 63 NY2d at 296-297 ; Semenetz, 7 NY3d at 200-201 ; see also Kreutter, 71 NY2d at 471-472 [declining to adopt fiduciary shield limit on personal jurisdiction where unnecessary as a matter o

2013“The error . . . cannot be considered harmless, as it bore on the ultimate issue to be determined by the jury (see Cheul Soo Kang v Violante, 60 AD3d at 992; Noakes u Rosa, 54 AD3d 317 [2008]; Hatton v Gassier, 219 AD2d 697 [1995]; Gagliano v Vaccaro, 97 AD2d 430 [1983]; Murray v Donlan, 77 AD2d 337 [1980])” (Sanchez v Steenson, 101 AD3d 982, 983 [2012]; see also Conners v Duck’s Cesspool Serv., 144 AD2d 329 [1988]).

2013“The error . . . cannot be considered harmless, as it bore on the ultimate issue to be determined by the jury (see Cheul Soo Kang v Violante, 60 AD3d at 992; Noakes u Rosa, 54 AD3d 317 [2008]; Hatton v Gassier, 219 AD2d 697 [1995]; Gagliano v Vaccaro, 97 AD2d 430 [1983]; Murray v Donlan, 77 AD2d 337 [1980])” (Sanchez v Steenson, 101 AD3d 982, 983 [2012]; see also Conners v Duck’s Cesspool Serv., 144 AD2d 329 [1988]).

2013“The error . . . cannot be considered harmless, as it bore on the ultimate issue to be determined by the jury (see Cheul Soo Kang v Violante, 60 AD3d at 992; Noakes u Rosa, 54 AD3d 317 [2008]; Hatton v Gassier, 219 AD2d 697 [1995]; Gagliano v Vaccaro, 97 AD2d 430 [1983]; Murray v Donlan, 77 AD2d 337 [1980])” (Sanchez v Steenson, 101 AD3d 982, 983 [2012]; see also Conners v Duck’s Cesspool Serv., 144 AD2d 329 [1988]).

2007(People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 240 [1975].) Reversal is required if there is any “reasonable possibility that the erroneously admitted evidence contributed to the conviction.” (People v Hamlin, 71 NY2d 750, 756 [1988].) For the reasons stated in Watson II , this court finds that the Crawford error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.