conducts analysis in New York

2016This Court essentially “sits as a thirteenth juror and decides which facts were proven at trial” (People v Danielson, 9 NY3d at 348 ).

2015This Court essentially “sits as a thirteenth juror and decides which facts were proven at trial” (People v Danielson, 9 NY3d at 348 ).

2023A full evidentiary hearing to determine whether a violation has occurred is not required where "the defendant is afforded an opportunity to respond and the court conducts an inquiry of sufficient depth to assure itself that the information upon which it bases the sentence is reliable and accurate" ( People v Kocher , 116 AD3d 1301 , 1302 [3d Dept 2014] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; see People v Outley , 80 NY2d 702, 713 [1993]; People v Clark , 61 AD3d 1179, 1181 [3d Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 924 [2009]).

2023A full evidentiary hearing to determine whether a violation has occurred is not required where "the defendant is afforded an opportunity to respond and the court conducts an inquiry of sufficient depth to assure itself that the information upon which it bases the sentence is reliable and accurate" ( People v Kocher , 116 AD3d 1301 , 1302 [3d Dept 2014] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; see People v Outley , 80 NY2d 702, 713 [1993]; People v Clark , 61 AD3d 1179, 1181 [3d Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 924 [2009]).

2023A full evidentiary hearing to determine whether a violation has occurred is not required where "the defendant is afforded an opportunity to respond and the court conducts an inquiry of sufficient depth to assure itself that the information upon which it bases the sentence is reliable and accurate" ( People v Kocher , 116 AD3d 1301 , 1302 [3d Dept 2014] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; see People v Outley , 80 NY2d 702, 713 [1993]; People v Clark , 61 AD3d 1179, 1181 [3d Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 924 [2009]).

2023A full evidentiary hearing to determine whether a violation has occurred is not required where "the defendant is afforded an opportunity to respond and the court conducts an inquiry of sufficient depth to assure itself that the information upon which it bases the sentence is reliable and accurate" ( People v Kocher , 116 AD3d 1301 , 1302 [3d Dept 2014] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; see People v Outley , 80 NY2d 702, 713 [1993]; People v Clark , 61 AD3d 1179, 1181 [3d Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 924 [2009]).

2019Once this court conducts such an analysis, it must then decide whether the verdict finding the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt was warranted ( see Joyner , 126 AD3d at 1005 ; Curry , 112 AD3d at 844).

2016Once this court conducts such an analysis, it must then decide whether the verdict finding the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt was warranted ( see Joyner , 126 AD3d at 1005 ; Curry , 112 AD3d at 844).

2007(Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89 [1982].) If the party seeking custody is not a parent, the court must first determine if the petitioner has standing to seek custody.

2007An award of custody is determined after the court conducts an analysis of the best interests of the child. ( Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer , 55 NY2d 89 [1982].) If the party seeking custody is not a parent, the court must first determine if the petitioner has standing to seek custody. ( Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys , 40 NY2d 543 [1976].) It is well settled that a foster parent does not have standing to institute a petition for custody. ( Matter of Michael W. , 120 AD2d 87 [1986].) Findings and Conclusions After reviewing the testimony, its credibility findings, the proofs and case file and tak

2022Conversely, section 168-l (6) does not explicitly or implicitly bestow discretion on the courts to “depart” from a sexually violent offender designation. - 10 - - 11 - No. 98 That section sets forth only “the procedure for SORA adjudications, describing how after the Board indicates whether a defendant is a sexually violent offender, a court conducts a hearing in which it reviews the Board’s recommendations and officially pronounces the defendant’s designation” (Bullock, 125 AD3d at 7 ); it does not provide the courts with the discretion to disregard the legislature’s unambiguous statutory def

2020If the factfinder failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded, then this Court must dismiss the [*2]accusatory instrument or any reversed count ( see CPL 470.20[5]; People v Romero , 7 NY3d 633, 643-644 ; People v Mateo , 2 NY3d 383, 410 ).

2019If the court concludes the plaintiff has met this threshold burden, the jury is charged with determining “if a reasonable person who knows or should have known of the product’s potential for causing injury and of the feasible alternative design[s] would have concluded that the product should not have been marketed in that condition” (PJI 2:120; Voss, 59 NY2d at 108-109 ).

2007An award of custody is determined after the court conducts an analysis of the best interests of the child. ( Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer , 55 NY2d 89 [1982].) If the party seeking custody is not a parent, the court must first determine if the petitioner has standing to seek custody. ( Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys , 40 NY2d 543 [1976].) It is well settled that a foster parent does not have standing to institute a petition for custody. ( Matter of Michael W. , 120 AD2d 87 [1986].) Findings and Conclusions After reviewing the testimony, its credibility findings, the proofs and case file and tak

2007An award of custody is determined after the court conducts an analysis of the best interests of the child. ( Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer , 55 NY2d 89 [1982].) If the party seeking custody is not a parent, the court must first determine if the petitioner has standing to seek custody. ( Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys , 40 NY2d 543 [1976].) It is well settled that a foster parent does not have standing to institute a petition for custody. ( Matter of Michael W. , 120 AD2d 87 [1986].) Findings and Conclusions After reviewing the testimony, its credibility findings, the proofs and case file and tak

2007An award of custody is determined after the court conducts an analysis of the best interests of the child. ( Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer , 55 NY2d 89 [1982].) If the party seeking custody is not a parent, the court must first determine if the petitioner has standing to seek custody. ( Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys , 40 NY2d 543 [1976].) It is well settled that a foster parent does not have standing to institute a petition for custody. ( Matter of Michael W. , 120 AD2d 87 [1986].) Findings and Conclusions After reviewing the testimony, its credibility findings, the proofs and case file and tak

1998The manner in which the court conducts the inquiry and follows the three steps is within its discretion; there is no prescribed procedure that must be followed so long as the substantive principles are satisfied and an adequate record is made (People v Hameed, 88 NY2d 232 , cert denied 519 US 1065 ).

1998The manner in which the court conducts the inquiry and follows the three steps is within its discretion; there is no prescribed procedure that must be followed so long as the substantive principles are satisfied and an adequate record is made (People v Hameed, 88 NY2d 232 , cert denied 519 US 1065 ).