Assuming defendant in New York

2022Given the general deference afforded the fact-finding court, we find no basis to conclude the court erred in this determination ( see People v Hernandez , 75 NY2d 350,356 [1990], affd 500 US 352 [1991]).

2022Given the general deference afforded the fact-finding court, we find no basis to conclude the court erred in this determination ( see People v Hernandez , 75 NY2d 350,356 [1990], affd 500 US 352 [1991]).

2024Before the People's final witness testified, the court asked how the defense would like to proceed and defense counsel replied that "we [are] still in the process of discussing that." At the close of the People's proof, the court once again asked how defendant would like to proceed, and, after a recess for counsel to meet with his client, counsel advised that the defense would "not be presenting a case." The court confirmed with defendant that he understood that he had [*3]a right to testify and asked defendant, with that understanding, whether he had chosen not to testify, and defendant repli

2024Before the People's final witness testified, the court asked how the defense would like to proceed and defense counsel replied that "we [are] still in the process of discussing that." At the close of the People's proof, the court once again asked how defendant would like to proceed, and, after a recess for counsel to meet with his client, counsel advised that the defense would "not be presenting a case." The court confirmed with defendant that he understood that he had [*3]a right to testify and asked defendant, with that understanding, whether he had chosen not to testify, and defendant repli

2020Assuming defendants' allegations to be true, defendants failed to allege how plaintiff's actions in withdrawing from representation and in withdrawing certain allegations in the amended complaint caused them to sustain any damages ( see Coleman v Fox Horan & Camerini , 274 AD2d 308 [1st Dept 2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 767 [2000]).

2018Assuming defendants are unable to access their case file due to a retaining lien, the court improperly facilitated a "work around" of such lien ( see Law Firm of Ravi Batra, P.C. v Rabinowich , 77 AD3d 532 [1st Dept 2010]; Warsop v Novik , 50 AD3d 608 [1st Dept 2008]; see also Artim v Artim , 109 AD2d 811, 812 [2d Dept 1985]).

2018Assuming defendants are unable to access their case file due to a retaining lien, the court improperly facilitated a "work around" of such lien ( see Law Firm of Ravi Batra, P.C. v Rabinowich , 77 AD3d 532 [1st Dept 2010]; Warsop v Novik , 50 AD3d 608 [1st Dept 2008]; see also Artim v Artim , 109 AD2d 811, 812 [2d Dept 1985]).

2016Assuming defendant’s/challenge to the court’s receipt of additional direct testimony at a suppression hearing was preserved, we find that the hearing court properly exercised its discretion in permitting the People to ask additional questions on direct examination of a police witness after they stated that they had no further questions, because the court had not yet ruled on the suppression motion (see People v Gnesin, 127 AD3d 652 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1164 [2015]).

2015Plaintiff also submitted an affidavit from his treating chiropractor who found deficits in ranges of motion in the cervical and lumbar spines, shortly after the accident and currently, and causally connected these deficits to the accident, opining that they were unrelated to his age or any prior trauma, as evidenced by his ability to work full time as a taxi driver prior to the accident (see Santos v Perez, 107 AD3d 572, 573 [1st Dept 2013]; Torain v Bah, 78 AD3d 588 [1st Dept 2010]).

2015Assuming defendants met their prima facie burden of showing that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury to his cervical or lumbar spine by submitting the affirmed report of an orthopedist who found full ranges of motion (see Perl v Meher, 18 NY3d 208, 216-217 [2011]; Levinson v Mollah, 105 AD3d 644 [1st Dept 2013]), plaintiff raised an issue of fact as to whether he sustained serious injuries by submitting the affirmed report of a radiologist who interpreted plaintiffs cervical and lumbar spine MRIs, and found herniated discs at several levels.

2015In order to infer the misconduct required by our case law, there must be some analytic basis to trace the threats back to defendant (see People v Smart, 23 NY3d 213, 220 [2014][the "People must demonstrate by - 19 - - 20 - No. 32 clear and convincing evidence that the defendant engaged in misconduct aimed at least in part at preventing the witness from testifying and that (defendant's) misdeeds were a significant cause of the witness's decision not to testify"], citing Geraci, 85 NY2d at 366-368 , and People v Maher, 89 NY2d 456, 462 [1997]).

2015In order to infer the misconduct required by our case law, there must be some analytic basis to trace the threats back to defendant (see People v Smart, 23 NY3d 213, 220 [2014] [the “People must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant engaged in misconduct aimed at least in part at preventing the witness from testifying and that (defendant’s) misdeeds were a significant cause of the witness’s decision not to testify”], citing Geraci, 85 NY2d at 366-368 , and People v Maher, 89 NY2d 456, 462 [1997]).

2014Assuming defendant’s submissions make a prima facie case, plaintiffs opposition papers raise triable issues of fact concerning defendant’s departures from good and accepted medical practice (see Scalisi v Oberlander, 96 AD3d 106 [1st Dept 2012]; Costa v Columbia Presbyt.

2014Assuming defendant's submissions make a prima facie case, plaintiff's opposition papers raise triable issues of fact concerning defendant's departures from good and accepted medical practice ( see Scalisi v Oberlander , 96 AD3d 106 [1st Dept 2012]; Costa v Columbia Presbyt.

2010Assuming defendant Winoker, the managing agent, had exclusive custody and control of the subject premises, a showing that defendant had notice of the alleged malfunction would still be necessary (see Levine v City of New York, 67 AD3d 510 [2009]).

2009(People v Anderson, 268 AD2d 228 [1st Dept 2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 792 [2000]; People v Gabriel, 264 AD2d 641 [1st Dept 1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 823 [1999]; People v Hanson, 195 AD2d 408 [1st Dept 1993].) Finally, even if the defendant had standing to challenge the seizure and did not abandon the narcotics the police had validly placed the defendant under arrest when the narcotics were discovered and observed the narcotics in plain view from a lawful vantage point when they were seized.

2009(People v Anderson, 268 AD2d 228 [1st Dept 2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 792 [2000]; People v Gabriel, 264 AD2d 641 [1st Dept 1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 823 [1999]; People v Hanson, 195 AD2d 408 [1st Dept 1993].) Finally, even if the defendant had standing to challenge the seizure and did not abandon the narcotics the police had validly placed the defendant under arrest when the narcotics were discovered and observed the narcotics in plain view from a lawful vantage point when they were seized.

2009(People v Anderson, 268 AD2d 228 [1st Dept 2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 792 [2000]; People v Gabriel, 264 AD2d 641 [1st Dept 1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 823 [1999]; People v Hanson, 195 AD2d 408 [1st Dept 1993].) Finally, even if the defendant had standing to challenge the seizure and did not abandon the narcotics the police had validly placed the defendant under arrest when the narcotics were discovered and observed the narcotics in plain view from a lawful vantage point when they were seized.

2001(See, CPL 170.65 [1]; People v Worley, supra; People v Davino, 173 Misc 2d 410 [Crim Ct, Kings County 1997]; People v Quiles, 179 Misc 2d 59 [Crim Ct, NY County 1998]; People v Richberg, 125 Misc 2d 975 [Crim Ct, NY County 1984], citing People v Colon, supra.) Comparably, when a Grand Jury has not voted an indictment, the People’s announcement of readiness on a felony charge is ineffective.

2001(See, CPL 170.65 [1]; People v Worley, supra; People v Davino, 173 Misc 2d 410 [Crim Ct, Kings County 1997]; People v Quiles, 179 Misc 2d 59 [Crim Ct, NY County 1998]; People v Richberg, 125 Misc 2d 975 [Crim Ct, NY County 1984], citing People v Colon, supra.) Comparably, when a Grand Jury has not voted an indictment, the People’s announcement of readiness on a felony charge is ineffective.

2001(See, CPL 100.40 [1] [c].) Assuming defendant’s objection (see, People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354 [2000]), any statement of readiness prior to conversion of a misdemeanor complaint has no effect for purposes of tolling the speedy trial statute when the defendant has not contributed to the delay.

2001Once again, as in all cases, the People’s proof may consist of either direct evidence, such as where the drugs are actually recovered (see, People v Simmons, supra; People v Boyd, supra; People v Rodriguez, supra; People v McGrath, supra), or circumstantial evidence, such as where the People rely upon prior transactions in which the defendant was able to provide the drugs as he promised (see, People v Flores, supra; People v Mullen, supra).

2001Once again, as in all cases, the People’s proof may consist of either direct evidence, such as where the drugs are actually recovered (see, People v Simmons, supra; People v Boyd, supra; People v Rodriguez, supra; People v McGrath, supra), or circumstantial evidence, such as where the People rely upon prior transactions in which the defendant was able to provide the drugs as he promised (see, People v Flores, supra; People v Mullen, supra).

2001Once again, as in all cases, the People’s proof may consist of either direct evidence, such as where the drugs are actually recovered (see, People v Simmons, supra; People v Boyd, supra; People v Rodriguez, supra; People v McGrath, supra), or circumstantial evidence, such as where the People rely upon prior transactions in which the defendant was able to provide the drugs as he promised (see, People v Flores, supra; People v Mullen, supra).

2001(See, CPL 170.65 [1]; People v Worley, supra; People v Davino, 173 Misc 2d 410 [Crim Ct, Kings County 1997]; People v Quiles, 179 Misc 2d 59 [Crim Ct, NY County 1998]; People v Richberg, 125 Misc 2d 975 [Crim Ct, NY County 1984], citing People v Colon, supra.) Comparably, when a Grand Jury has not voted an indictment, the People’s announcement of readiness on a felony charge is ineffective.