guiding principle in New York

2024“The guiding principle is that expert opinion is proper when it would help to clarify an issue calling for professional or technical knowledge, possessed by the expert and beyond the ken of the typical juror.” De Long v County of Erie, 60 NY2d 296, 307 (1983); People v Allweiss, 48 NY2d 40, 50 (1979).

2023The guiding principle is that expert opinion is proper when it would help to clarify an issue calling for professional or technical knowledge, possessed by the expert and beyond the ken of the typical juror ( see De Long v County of Erie , 60 NY2d 296, 307 ; Martell v Dorchester Apt.

2022The claimant argues that, although she failed to set forth the date that she was burned in her notice of intention to file a claim, the information she provided should have been enough "'to enable the [defendant] . . . to investigate the claim[s] promptly and to ascertain its liability under the circumstances,' which is the guiding principle informing section 11(b)" ( Lepkowski v State of New York , 1 NY3d at 207 , quoting Heisler v State of New York , 78 AD2d at 767 ; see Gang v State of New York , 177 AD3d at 1303).

2016The guiding principle and “purpose of the notice of claim requirement [is] to allow [defendant] to investigate the claim and to estimate its potential liability” (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 24 NY3d 275, 282 [2014]; see Lepkowski v State of New York, 1 NY3d at 207 ). “ ‘[Absolute exactness’ ” is not required {Morra v State of New York, 107 AD3d 1115 , 1115 [2013], quoting Heisler v State of New York, 78 AD2d 767 , 767 [1980]), but the claim must enable prompt investigation and be “sufficiently specific to enable [a] defendant to reasonably infer the basis for its alleged liability

2024Corp. v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Cmty. Renewal , 87 NY2d 325, 332 [1995].) Looking to the purposes of the Rent Stabilization Law as a guiding principle, the court finds that a broader, more flexible definition of fraud better serves the public policy behind rent stabilization.

2024Corp. v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Cmty. Renewal , 87 NY2d 325, 332 [1995].) Looking to the purposes of the Rent Stabilization Law as a guiding principle, the court finds that a broader, more flexible definition of fraud better serves the public policy behind rent stabilization.

2002(See People v Cronin, 60 NY2d 430, 433 [1983].) “The guiding principle is that expert opinion is proper when it would help to clarify an issue calling for professional or technical knowledge, possessed by the expert and beyond the ken of the typical juror.” (De Long v County of Erie, 60 NY2d 296, 307 [1983]; see also People v Taylor, 75 NY2d 277, 288 [1990].) As a result, expert testimony may be admissible “where the conclusions to be drawn from the facts ‘depend upon professional or scientific knowledge or skill not within the range of ordinary training or intelligence’ ” of a jury.

1990The guiding principle is that expert opinion is proper when it would help to clarify an issue calling for professional or technical knowledge, possessed by the expert and beyond the ken of the typical juror” (De Long v County of Erie, 60 NY2d 296, 307 ; see also, People v Cronin, 60 NY2d 430, 432 ).

2021The father appeals, solely arguing that that he should have been granted more expansive supervised parenting time. [FN1] In setting a parenting time schedule, the guiding principle is the best interests of the child ( see Matter of Jorge JJ. v Erica II. , 191 AD3d 1188, 1191 [2021]; Matter of Jill Q. v James R. , 185 AD3d 1106, 1108 [2020]; Matter of Williams v Patinka , 144 AD3d 1432, 1433 [2016]).

2020"As with custody determinations, the guiding principle in fixing a [parenting time] schedule is the best interests of the child" ( Matter of Maziejka v Fennelly , 3 AD3d 748, 749 [2004]; accord Matter of Williams v Patinka , 144 AD3d 1432, 1433 [2016]).

1982The contention was considered by Justice Hopkins, speaking for a unanimous Appellate Division, in People v Servidio ( 77 AD2d 191, 196 ): “Actually the guiding principle in these, and other cases involving the right to counsel is that the defendant’s right should not be ‘dependent upon “mechanical” and “arbitrary” requirements’ (People v Arthur, supra, at p 329; People v Gunner, supra, at p 232; see, also, People v Ramos, 40 NY2d 610 ; People v Hobson, supra, at p 483; People v Singer, supra).

1980Actually the guiding principle in these, and other cases involving the right to counsel is that the defendant’s right should not be 'dependent upon "mechanical” and "arbitrary” requirements’ (People v Arthur, supra, at p 329; People v Gunner, supra, at p 232; see, also, People v Ramos, 40 NY2d 610 ; People v Hobson, supra, at p 483; People v Singer, supra).

2022The claimant argues that, although she failed to set forth the date that she was burned in her notice of intention to file a claim, the information she provided should have been enough "'to enable the [defendant] . . . to investigate the claim[s] promptly and to ascertain its liability under the circumstances,' which is the guiding principle informing section 11(b)" ( Lepkowski v State of New York , 1 NY3d at 207 , quoting Heisler v State of New York , 78 AD2d at 767 ; see Gang v State of New York , 177 AD3d at 1303).

2016The guiding principle and “purpose of the notice of claim requirement [is] to allow [defendant] to investigate the claim and to estimate its potential liability” (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 24 NY3d 275, 282 [2014]; see Lepkowski v State of New York, 1 NY3d at 207 ). “ ‘[Absolute exactness’ ” is not required {Morra v State of New York, 107 AD3d 1115 , 1115 [2013], quoting Heisler v State of New York, 78 AD2d 767 , 767 [1980]), but the claim must enable prompt investigation and be “sufficiently specific to enable [a] defendant to reasonably infer the basis for its alleged liability

2026The guiding principle in the interpretation of a written constitution is to give effect to the plain language of the document ( Matter of King v Cuomo , 81 NY2d 247, 253 [1993]).

2026The guiding principle in the interpretation of a written constitution is to give effect to the plain language of the document ( Matter of King v Cuomo , 81 NY2d 247, 253 [1993]).

2017The guiding principle must be whether a reasonable attorney, familiar with the Code and its ethical structures would have notice of what conduct is proscribed. . . . [Respondent] was plainly on notice that [his] conduct in this case . . . could be held to reflect adversely on [his] fitness to practice law. [Respondent] knew or should have known that such [conduct] . . . tends to undermine public confidence in the judicial system' ( Matter of Holtzman , 78 N.Y.2d 184 (1991)." The Special Referee also dismissed all seven affirmative defenses asserted by the respondent in his answer to the petiti

2014With respect to charge three, in determining whether an attorney has engaged in conduct adversely reflecting upon his or her fitness to practice law, “the guiding principle must be whether a reasonable attorney, familiar with the Code and its ethical strictures, would have notice of what conduct is proscribed” (Matter of Holtzman, 78 NY2d 184, 191 [1991]).

2026Motion Sequence Number: (i) 32 is Granted to the Extent Set Forth Below, (ii) 33 is Granted to the Extent Set Forth Below,, and (iii) 31 is Withdrawn Without Prejudice CPLR § 3101 requires “full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof.” As a guiding principle, the words “material and necessary” are to be “interpreted liberally to require disclosure of . . . any facts bearing on the controversy’ (Rivera v NYP Holdings Inc., 63 AD3d 469, 469 [1st Dept 2009] [quoting Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ.

2025No. 007) CPLR § 3101 requires “full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof by. . . a party, or the officer, director, member, agent or employee of a party.” As a guiding principle, the words “material and necessary” are to be “interpreted liberally to require disclosure of . . . any facts bearing on the controversy’ (Rivera v NYP Holdings Inc., 63 AD3d 469, 469 [1st Dept 2009] [quoting Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ.

2026Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406 (1968)]).

2025Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406 (1968)]).

2024In doing so, we recognize the unique role of the People in the making of our Constitution when we interpret its text: "If the guiding principle of statutory interpretation is to give effect to the plain language, especially should this be so in the interpretation of a written Constitution, an instrument framed deliberately and with care, and adopted by the people as the organic law of the State" ( Matter of King v Cuomo , 81 NY2d 247 [1993] [internal citations and [*20]quotation marks omitted]; see Hoffman v New York State Ind. Redistricting Commn. , 41 NY3d 341 , 359 [2023] ["We have long and

2024In doing so, we recognize the unique role of the people in the making of our Constitution when we interpret its text: "If the guiding principle of statutory interpretation is to give effect to the plain language, especially should this be so in the interpretation of a written Constitution, an instrument framed deliberately and with care, and adopted by the people as the organic law of the State" ( Matter of King v Cuomo , 81 NY2d 247, 253 [1993] [citations, internal [*22]quotation marks and brackets omitted]; see Matter of Hoffmann v New York State Ind. Redistricting Commn. , 41 NY3d 341 , 359

2024Corp. , 62 NY2d 19, 24 [1984].") "[I]n light of the guiding principle that equity abhors a forfeiture," Thompson , 252 AD2d at 437 , the difference between these two types of proceedings is not to be lightly analyzed. [FN7] A conclusory allegation that a condition or behavior "is not curable" is inadequate to provide sufficient detail regarding the irredeemable nature of the alleged violation, or to explicate how the landlord determined that a cure was not effectuated such as to terminate a rent stabilized tenancy.

2024Corp. , 62 NY2d 19, 24 [1984].") "[I]n light of the guiding principle that equity abhors a forfeiture," Thompson , 252 AD2d at 437 , the difference between these two types of proceedings is not to be lightly analyzed. [FN7] A conclusory allegation that a condition or behavior "is not curable" is inadequate to provide sufficient detail regarding the irredeemable nature of the alleged violation, or to explicate how the landlord determined that a cure was not effectuated such as to terminate a rent stabilized tenancy.

2023"As with custody determinations, the guiding principle in fixing a parenting time schedule is the best interests of the child" ( Matter of Jill Q. v James R. , 185 AD3d 1106, 1108 [3d Dept 2020] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; see Matter of Michael U. v Barbara U. , 189 AD3d 1909, 1910 [3d Dept 2020]).

2021The father appeals, solely arguing that that he should have been granted more expansive supervised parenting time. [FN1] In setting a parenting time schedule, the guiding principle is the best interests of the child ( see Matter of Jorge JJ. v Erica II. , 191 AD3d 1188, 1191 [2021]; Matter of Jill Q. v James R. , 185 AD3d 1106, 1108 [2020]; Matter of Williams v Patinka , 144 AD3d 1432, 1433 [2016]).

2023"As with custody determinations, the guiding principle in fixing a parenting time schedule is the best interests of the child" ( Matter of Jill Q. v James R. , 185 AD3d 1106, 1108 [3d Dept 2020] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; see Matter of Michael U. v Barbara U. , 189 AD3d 1909, 1910 [3d Dept 2020]).

2021"The guiding principle in fixing a visitation schedule is the best interests of the child, and it is well settled that the best interests of a child generally lie with a healthy, meaningful relationship with both parents" ( Matter of Michael U. v Barbara U. , 189 AD3d 1909, 1910 [2020] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]).

2020"As with custody determinations, the guiding principle in fixing a [parenting time] schedule is the best interests of the child" ( Matter of Maziejka v Fennelly , 3 AD3d 748, 749 [2004]; accord Matter of Williams v Patinka , 144 AD3d 1432, 1433 [2016]).

2010Turning to the mother’s issues regarding Family Court’s visitation schedule, “[a]s with custody determinations, the guiding principle in fixing a visitation schedule is the best interests of the child” (Matter of Maziejka v Fennelly, 3 AD3d 748, 749 [2004]; see Matter of Daniel v Pylinski, 61 AD3d 1291, 1292 [2009]).

2011“The guiding principle is that expert opinion is proper when it would help to clarify an issue calling for professional or technical knowledge, possessed by the expert and beyond the ken of the typical juror” (De Long v County of Erie, 60 NY2d 296, 307 [1983] [citations omitted]; see People v Taylor, 75 NY2d 277, 288 [1990] [same]).

2002(See People v Cronin, 60 NY2d 430, 433 [1983].) “The guiding principle is that expert opinion is proper when it would help to clarify an issue calling for professional or technical knowledge, possessed by the expert and beyond the ken of the typical juror.” (De Long v County of Erie, 60 NY2d 296, 307 [1983]; see also People v Taylor, 75 NY2d 277, 288 [1990].) As a result, expert testimony may be admissible “where the conclusions to be drawn from the facts ‘depend upon professional or scientific knowledge or skill not within the range of ordinary training or intelligence’ ” of a jury.

2008Under this guiding principle, trial courts need not expressly delineate for a defendant those appellate issues that are foreclosed by a waiver of the right to appeal, and those that survive, in order for the court to obtain a valid appeal waiver (see People v Kemp, 94 NY2d at 833 ; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d at 737; People v Muniz, 91 NY2d at 574-575; People v Wagoner, 6 AD3d 985, 986 [2004]; People v Umber, 2 AD3d 1051, 1052 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 747 [2004]).

1998The guiding principle in each of these cases is plain: where the plea allocution demonstrates a knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of the right to appeal, intended comprehensively to cover all aspects of the case, and no constitutional or statutory mandate or public policy concern prohibits its acceptance, the waiver will be upheld completely even if the underlying claim has not yet reached full maturation (see, People v Callahan, supra, 80 NY2d, at 281 ; People v Allen, supra, 86 NY2d, at 602-604 ; People v Seaberg, supra, 74 NY2d, at 7-9 ; see also, People v Hidalgo, supra).

2024“The guiding principle is that expert opinion is proper when it would help to clarify an issue calling for professional or technical knowledge, possessed by the expert and beyond the ken of the typical juror.” De Long v County of Erie, 60 NY2d 296, 307 (1983); People v Allweiss, 48 NY2d 40, 50 (1979).

1987The Court of Appeals has set the standard for the admissibility of expert testimony: "The guiding principle is that expert opinion is proper when it would help to clarify an issue calling for professional or technical knowledge, possessed by the expert and beyond the ken of the typical juror” (De Long v County of Erie, 60 NY2d 296, 307 ; People v Cronin, supra; People v Allweiss, 48 NY2d 40 ; Selkowitz v County of Nassau, 45 NY2d 97 ).

2022"This Court has clarified that this standard—by any fair interpretation of the evidence—'simply restates the guiding principle that in reviewing the whole trial to ascertain whether the conclusion was a fair reflection of the evidence, great deference must be given to the fact-finding function of the jury,' which had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses" ( Annunziata v City of New York , 175 AD3d 438 , 441, quoting Nicastro v Park , 113 AD2d 129, 136 ).

2019This Court has clarified that this standard—by any fair interpretation of the evidence—"simply restates the guiding principle that in reviewing the whole trial to ascertain whether the conclusion was a fair reflection of the evidence, great deference must be given to the fact-finding function of the jury," which had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses ( Nicastro v Park , 113 AD2d at 136 ).

2002(Cronin, supra at 432 , quoting Dougherty v Milliken, 163 NY 527, 533 [1900]; see also People v Miller, 91 NY2d 372, 379 [1998].) Thus, the trial judge must determine “ ‘when jurors are able to draw conclusions from the evidence based on their day-to-day experience, their common observation and their knowledge, and when they would be benefited by the specialized knowledge of an expert witness’.” (Lee, supra at 162 , quoting Cronin, supra at 433 .) However, “even if the proposed testimony was not beyond the jury’s ken, [the Court of Appeals has repeatedly] upheld the admission of expert testimo

1983The guiding principle is that expert opinion is proper when it would help to clarify an issue calling for professional or technical knowledge, possessed by the expert and beyond the ken of the typical juror (People v Allweiss, 48 NY2d 40, 50 ; Selkowitz v County of Nassau, 45 NY2d 97 , supra; Dougherty v Milliken, 163 NY 527 ).

2026Although courts generally favor frequent and regular visitation with a noncustodial parent ( see Strahl v Strahl , 66 AD2d 571, 574 [1979], affd 49 NY2d 1036 [1980]), the guiding principle in fixing any visitation schedule must be the best interests of the child ( see Eschbach v Eschbach , 56 NY2d 167, 171 [ [*4] 1982]).

2026Although courts generally favor frequent and regular visitation with a noncustodial parent ( see Strahl v Strahl , 66 AD2d 571 , 574 [1979], affd 49 NY2d 1036 [1980]), the guiding principle in fixing any visitation schedule must be the best interests of the child ( see Eschbach v Eschbach , 56 NY2d 167, 171 [ [*4] 1982]).

2025In Raschel , the Court of Appeals held that, since the CPLR is silent as to the number of copies of a summons and complaint that must be served on a person conceivably acting in more than one representative capacity, the guiding principle must be one of notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections" ( id. , citing Raschel v Rish , 69 NY2d 694, 696-697 [1986], quoting Mullane v Central Hanover Trust Co., 339 US 306 [1950] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2025In Raschel , the Court of Appeals held that, since the CPLR is silent as to the number of copies of a summons and complaint that must be served on a person conceivably acting in more than one representative capacity, the guiding principle must be one of notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections" ( id. , citing Raschel v Rish , 69 NY2d 694, 696-697 [1986], quoting Mullane v Central Hanover Trust Co., 339 US 306 [1950] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2022The claimant argues that "substantial compliance" with the statutory requirements governing any of the substantive contents of a notice of intention to file a claim is all that is necessary to enable a court to exercise jurisdiction over the State ( Heisler v State of New York , 78 AD2d at 767 ; see Harvey Chalmers & Son, Inc. v State of New York , 271 App Div 699 , 701, affd 297 NY 690 ).

2005What Lepkowski characterized as the guiding principle informing section 11 (b) actually had been the standard for evaluation of claims and notices of intention since it was articulated in Chalmers & Son v State of New York ( 271 App Div 699 [1947], affd 297 NY 690 [1947]). 10 Chalmers was the first decision to recognize the remedy of deeming a document labeled a “notice of intention” — albeit with a total sum — to be a claim: “The purpose of the provision requiring the presentation of a notice of intention to file a claim or the claim itself against the State as a condition precedent to the in