list factors in New York

2025In recognition of the fact that "[t]here is no form of proof so unreliable as recanting testimony" ( People v. Shilitano , 218 NY 161, 170 [1916], rearg denied 218 NY 702 [1916]); see People v. Jenkins , 84 AD3d 1403, 1407 [2d Dept 2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 1026 [2012]), courts have set forth a list of factors to be considered where, as here, the newly discovered evidence is recantation evidence, i.e., "(1) the inherent believability of the substance of the recanting testimony; (2) the witness's demeanor both at trial and at the evidentiary hearing; (3) the existence of evidence corroborating t

2019In recognition of the fact that "[t]here is no form of proof so unreliable as recanting testimony" ( People v Shilitano , 218 NY 161, 170 [1916], rearg denied 218 NY 702 [1916]; see People v Jenkins , 84 AD3d 1403, 1407 [2d Dept 2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 1026 [2012]), courts have set forth a list of factors to be considered where, as here, the newly discovered evidence is recantation evidence, i.e., "(1) the inherent believability of the substance of the recanting testimony; (2) the witness's demeanor both at trial and at the evidentiary hearing; (3) the existence of evidence corroborating the

2025In recognition of the fact that "[t]here is no form of proof so unreliable as recanting testimony" ( People v. Shilitano , 218 NY 161, 170 [1916], rearg denied 218 NY 702 [1916]); see People v. Jenkins , 84 AD3d 1403, 1407 [2d Dept 2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 1026 [2012]), courts have set forth a list of factors to be considered where, as here, the newly discovered evidence is recantation evidence, i.e., "(1) the inherent believability of the substance of the recanting testimony; (2) the witness's demeanor both at trial and at the evidentiary hearing; (3) the existence of evidence corroborating t

2019In recognition of the fact that "[t]here is no form of proof so unreliable as recanting testimony" ( People v Shilitano , 218 NY 161, 170 [1916], rearg denied 218 NY 702 [1916]; see People v Jenkins , 84 AD3d 1403, 1407 [2d Dept 2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 1026 [2012]), courts have set forth a list of factors to be considered where, as here, the newly discovered evidence is recantation evidence, i.e., "(1) the inherent believability of the substance of the recanting testimony; (2) the witness's demeanor both at trial and at the evidentiary hearing; (3) the existence of evidence corroborating the

2025In recognition of the fact that "[t]here is no form of proof so unreliable as recanting testimony" ( People v. Shilitano , 218 NY 161, 170 [1916], rearg denied 218 NY 702 [1916]); see People v. Jenkins , 84 AD3d 1403, 1407 [2d Dept 2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 1026 [2012]), courts have set forth a list of factors to be considered where, as here, the newly discovered evidence is recantation evidence, i.e., "(1) the inherent believability of the substance of the recanting testimony; (2) the witness's demeanor both at trial and at the evidentiary hearing; (3) the existence of evidence corroborating t

2025In recognition of the fact that "[t]here is no form of proof so unreliable as recanting testimony" ( People v. Shilitano , 218 NY 161, 170 [1916], rearg denied 218 NY 702 [1916]); see People v. Jenkins , 84 AD3d 1403, 1407 [2d Dept 2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 1026 [2012]), courts have set forth a list of factors to be considered where, as here, the newly discovered evidence is recantation evidence, i.e., "(1) the inherent believability of the substance of the recanting testimony; (2) the witness's demeanor both at trial and at the evidentiary hearing; (3) the existence of evidence corroborating t

2025In recognition of the fact that "[t]here is no form of proof so unreliable as recanting testimony" ( People v. Shilitano , 218 NY 161, 170 [1916], rearg denied 218 NY 702 [1916]); see People v. Jenkins , 84 AD3d 1403, 1407 [2d Dept 2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 1026 [2012]), courts have set forth a list of factors to be considered where, as here, the newly discovered evidence is recantation evidence, i.e., "(1) the inherent believability of the substance of the recanting testimony; (2) the witness's demeanor both at trial and at the evidentiary hearing; (3) the existence of evidence corroborating t

2019In recognition of the fact that "[t]here is no form of proof so unreliable as recanting testimony" ( People v Shilitano , 218 NY 161, 170 [1916], rearg denied 218 NY 702 [1916]; see People v Jenkins , 84 AD3d 1403, 1407 [2d Dept 2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 1026 [2012]), courts have set forth a list of factors to be considered where, as here, the newly discovered evidence is recantation evidence, i.e., "(1) the inherent believability of the substance of the recanting testimony; (2) the witness's demeanor both at trial and at the evidentiary hearing; (3) the existence of evidence corroborating the

2025In recognition of the fact that "[t]here is no form of proof so unreliable as recanting testimony" ( People v. Shilitano , 218 NY 161, 170 [1916], rearg denied 218 NY 702 [1916]); see People v. Jenkins , 84 AD3d 1403, 1407 [2d Dept 2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 1026 [2012]), courts have set forth a list of factors to be considered where, as here, the newly discovered evidence is recantation evidence, i.e., "(1) the inherent believability of the substance of the recanting testimony; (2) the witness's demeanor both at trial and at the evidentiary hearing; (3) the existence of evidence corroborating t

2019In recognition of the fact that "[t]here is no form of proof so unreliable as recanting testimony" ( People v Shilitano , 218 NY 161, 170 [1916], rearg denied 218 NY 702 [1916]; see People v Jenkins , 84 AD3d 1403, 1407 [2d Dept 2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 1026 [2012]), courts have set forth a list of factors to be considered where, as here, the newly discovered evidence is recantation evidence, i.e., "(1) the inherent believability of the substance of the recanting testimony; (2) the witness's demeanor both at trial and at the evidentiary hearing; (3) the existence of evidence corroborating the

2025In recognition of the fact that "[t]here is no form of proof so unreliable as recanting testimony" ( People v. Shilitano , 218 NY 161, 170 [1916], rearg denied 218 NY 702 [1916]); see People v. Jenkins , 84 AD3d 1403, 1407 [2d Dept 2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 1026 [2012]), courts have set forth a list of factors to be considered where, as here, the newly discovered evidence is recantation evidence, i.e., "(1) the inherent believability of the substance of the recanting testimony; (2) the witness's demeanor both at trial and at the evidentiary hearing; (3) the existence of evidence corroborating t

2019In recognition of the fact that "[t]here is no form of proof so unreliable as recanting testimony" ( People v Shilitano , 218 NY 161, 170 [1916], rearg denied 218 NY 702 [1916]; see People v Jenkins , 84 AD3d 1403, 1407 [2d Dept 2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 1026 [2012]), courts have set forth a list of factors to be considered where, as here, the newly discovered evidence is recantation evidence, i.e., "(1) the inherent believability of the substance of the recanting testimony; (2) the witness's demeanor both at trial and at the evidentiary hearing; (3) the existence of evidence corroborating the

2022Respondent properly redacted some records of a list of standard investigative steps to be taken in NYPD investigations, in order to prevent disclosure of "nonroutine police procedures" ( Matter of Gould v New York City Police Dept. , 89 NY2d 267, 278 [1996]; see Public Officers Law § 87[2][e][iv]).

2022Respondent properly redacted some records of a list of standard investigative steps to be taken in NYPD investigations, in order to prevent disclosure of "nonroutine police procedures" ( Matter of Gould v New York City Police Dept. , 89 NY2d 267, 278 [1996]; see Public Officers Law § 87[2][e][iv]).

2012Corp. v Jagger, 11 NY3d 314, 317 [2008].) However, the Rent Stabilization Code provides a list of factors that may be considered as evidence in determining whether a rent-stabilized apartment is a tenant’s primary residence.

2012Corp. v Jagger, 11 NY3d 314, 317 [2008].) However, the Rent Stabilization Code provides a list of factors that may be considered as evidence in determining whether a rent-stabilized apartment is a tenant’s primary residence.

2023Indeed, the case cited by the Appellate Division for the list of factors relevant in this case, Matter of Malkin v Tully, compiled the list from factors in federal cases ( 65 AD2d 228, 231 [1978]).

2023Malkin described the relevant factors as “whether the petitioner signed the tax return, derived a substantial part of his income from the corporation, . . . had the right to hire and fire employees,” and “was authorized to sign checks” ( 65 AD2d at 231 [citations omitted]).

2023Additional relevant factors that have been considered include status as a corporate officer, shareholder and signatory on corporate bank accounts (see Matter of - 12 - - 13 - No. 86 Menik, 280 AD2d at 703 ; Matter of Hopper v Commissioner of Taxation & Fin., 224 AD2d 733, 737 [3d Dept 1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 808 [1996]), authority over the management of the corporation’s affairs (see Matter of Menik, 280 AD2d at 703 ; Matter of Risoli v Commissioner of Taxation & Fin., 237 AD2d 675, 676 [3d Dept 1997]), authority to direct payment of corporate bills and to make payroll (see Matter of Fisher v

2023Additional relevant factors that have been considered include status as a corporate officer, shareholder and signatory on corporate bank accounts (see Matter of - 12 - - 13 - No. 86 Menik, 280 AD2d at 703 ; Matter of Hopper v Commissioner of Taxation & Fin., 224 AD2d 733, 737 [3d Dept 1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 808 [1996]), authority over the management of the corporation’s affairs (see Matter of Menik, 280 AD2d at 703 ; Matter of Risoli v Commissioner of Taxation & Fin., 237 AD2d 675, 676 [3d Dept 1997]), authority to direct payment of corporate bills and to make payroll (see Matter of Fisher v

2023Because “[t]he factual nature of the determination precludes an exhaustive list of factors” (Matter of Basch v New York State Tax Commn., 134 AD2d 786, 787 [3d Dept 1987]), the list of factors considered in the state courts has evolved over time, just as it has in the federal courts.

2023Additional relevant factors that have been considered include status as a corporate officer, shareholder and signatory on corporate bank accounts (see Matter of - 12 - - 13 - No. 86 Menik, 280 AD2d at 703 ; Matter of Hopper v Commissioner of Taxation & Fin., 224 AD2d 733, 737 [3d Dept 1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 808 [1996]), authority over the management of the corporation’s affairs (see Matter of Menik, 280 AD2d at 703 ; Matter of Risoli v Commissioner of Taxation & Fin., 237 AD2d 675, 676 [3d Dept 1997]), authority to direct payment of corporate bills and to make payroll (see Matter of Fisher v

2023Additional relevant factors that have been considered include status as a corporate officer, shareholder and signatory on corporate bank accounts (see Matter of - 12 - - 13 - No. 86 Menik, 280 AD2d at 703 ; Matter of Hopper v Commissioner of Taxation & Fin., 224 AD2d 733, 737 [3d Dept 1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 808 [1996]), authority over the management of the corporation’s affairs (see Matter of Menik, 280 AD2d at 703 ; Matter of Risoli v Commissioner of Taxation & Fin., 237 AD2d 675, 676 [3d Dept 1997]), authority to direct payment of corporate bills and to make payroll (see Matter of Fisher v

2023Additional relevant factors that have been considered include status as a corporate officer, shareholder and signatory on corporate bank accounts (see Matter of - 12 - - 13 - No. 86 Menik, 280 AD2d at 703 ; Matter of Hopper v Commissioner of Taxation & Fin., 224 AD2d 733, 737 [3d Dept 1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 808 [1996]), authority over the management of the corporation’s affairs (see Matter of Menik, 280 AD2d at 703 ; Matter of Risoli v Commissioner of Taxation & Fin., 237 AD2d 675, 676 [3d Dept 1997]), authority to direct payment of corporate bills and to make payroll (see Matter of Fisher v

2023Additional relevant factors that have been considered include status as a corporate officer, shareholder and signatory on corporate bank accounts (see Matter of - 12 - - 13 - No. 86 Menik, 280 AD2d at 703 ; Matter of Hopper v Commissioner of Taxation & Fin., 224 AD2d 733, 737 [3d Dept 1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 808 [1996]), authority over the management of the corporation’s affairs (see Matter of Menik, 280 AD2d at 703 ; Matter of Risoli v Commissioner of Taxation & Fin., 237 AD2d 675, 676 [3d Dept 1997]), authority to direct payment of corporate bills and to make payroll (see Matter of Fisher v

2019This list of factors is not exhaustive; consideration may also be given to whether the child's family image would be destroyed, whether he or she would suffer physical and/or emotional harm as a result of identifying a third person as a parent and/or the significant disruption to the stability of the child's existing family unit ( see Matter of Christopher YY. v Jessica ZZ. , 159 AD3d at 33; Matter of Starla D. v Jeremy E. , 95 AD3d 1605, 1607 [2012], lv dismissed 19 NY3d 1015 [2012]).

2017Although not exhaustive, the following is a list of factors or circumstances that the court may consider in determining whether a proposed name change substantially promotes the child’s best interests: “(1) the extent to which a child identifies with and uses a particular surname; (2) the child’s expressed preference, if of sufficient age and maturity to articulate a basis for preferring a particular surname; (3) whether the child’s surname differs from the surname of the custodial parent; (4) the effect of the proposed name change on the child’s relationship with either parent; (5) whether th

2011Rather, the decision states “[t]hese factors, none of which should be determinative, may include” the seven factors set forth above (see Matter of Hyde, 15 NY3d at 186 [emphasis added]).