added clause in New York

2018However, a review of the transcript of the jury verdict and the judgment of conviction in the instant matter establishes that the objective of respondent's conspiracy, among other things, was theft by deception in the second degree, which we have determined is essentially similar to grand larceny in the second degree, a class C felony in this state ( see Matter of DuBose , 132 AD3d at 183 ; compare Penal Law § 155.40, with NJSA 2C:20-2 [b] [1] [a]).

2011The Court added that the rule prohibiting consecutive sentences where “the weapon possession was not separate and distinct from the shootings” (id. at 659) has been consistently applied (see People v Parks, 95 NY2d 811 [2000]; People v Sturkey, 77 NY2d 979 [1991]; People v Washington, 9 AD3d 499 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 682 [2004]).

2011The Court added that the rule prohibiting consecutive sentences where “the weapon possession was not separate and distinct from the shootings” (id. at 659) has been consistently applied (see People v Parks, 95 NY2d 811 [2000]; People v Sturkey, 77 NY2d 979 [1991]; People v Washington, 9 AD3d 499 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 682 [2004]).

2011The Court added that the rule prohibiting consecutive sentences where “the weapon possession was not separate and distinct from the shootings” (id. at 659) has been consistently applied (see People v Parks, 95 NY2d 811 [2000]; People v Sturkey, 77 NY2d 979 [1991]; People v Washington, 9 AD3d 499 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 682 [2004]).

2011The Court added that the rule prohibiting consecutive sentences where “the weapon possession was not separate and distinct from the shootings” (id. at 659) has been consistently applied (see People v Parks, 95 NY2d 811 [2000]; People v Sturkey, 77 NY2d 979 [1991]; People v Washington, 9 AD3d 499 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 682 [2004]).

2002The sentence imposed was not excessive {see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 ).

2002Indeed, it is the significant potential for prejudice flowing from such duplicative errors on the crucial issue in this case that provides the narrow circumstances that have persuaded us to address the issue despite the absence of proper objections by defense counsel (cf., People v Faison, 126 AD2d 739, 739-740 ).

2002The defendant was not prejudiced by the trial court’s added instruction on acting in concert (see, People v Whatley, 69 NY2d 784 ; People v Foster, 282 AD2d 226 ), given in response to the jury’s request for clarification (see, CPL 310.30).

2002Our analysis of the evidence leads us to conclude that the cumulative impact of permitting two police officers — who supplied the only identification testimony at trial — to provide improper bolstering evidence in a case that clearly turned on the issue that was bolstered by the People cannot be disregarded as harmless er ror, particularly with the added factors that defendant presented alibi evidence and was not arrested close in time to the alleged commission of the crimes (see, People v Polenca, 204 AD2d 911 ).

2002The defendant was not prejudiced by the trial court’s added instruction on acting in concert (see, People v Whatley, 69 NY2d 784 ; People v Foster, 282 AD2d 226 ), given in response to the jury’s request for clarification (see, CPL 310.30).

1996In an action to foreclose a mortgage on real property, a new notice of pendency may be filed despite cancellation of a previous one because the filing of such notice is a condition precedent to judgment and not merely an added privilege for the litigant (see, Pacific Lime v Lowenberg Corp., 77 AD2d 737 ; Isaias v Fischoff, 37 AD2d 934 ; Robbins v Goldstein, 36 AD2d 730 ; 1 Bergman, New York Mortgage Foreclosures, Notice of Pendency, § 15.05 [2]; see also, Slutsky v Blooming Grove Inn, 147 AD2d 208 ).

1996In an action to foreclose a mortgage on real property, a new notice of pendency may be filed despite cancellation of a previous one because the filing of such notice is a condition precedent to judgment and not merely an added privilege for the litigant (see, Pacific Lime v Lowenberg Corp., 77 AD2d 737 ; Isaias v Fischoff, 37 AD2d 934 ; Robbins v Goldstein, 36 AD2d 730 ; 1 Bergman, New York Mortgage Foreclosures, Notice of Pendency, § 15.05 [2]; see also, Slutsky v Blooming Grove Inn, 147 AD2d 208 ).

1996In an action to foreclose a mortgage on real property, a new notice of pendency may be filed despite cancellation of a previous one because the filing of such notice is a condition precedent to judgment and not merely an added privilege for the litigant (see, Pacific Lime v Lowenberg Corp., 77 AD2d 737 ; Isaias v Fischoff, 37 AD2d 934 ; Robbins v Goldstein, 36 AD2d 730 ; 1 Bergman, New York Mortgage Foreclosures, Notice of Pendency, § 15.05 [2]; see also, Slutsky v Blooming Grove Inn, 147 AD2d 208 ).

1995The statute defines the elements of proof necessary to establish unnecessary hardship, essentially codifying the criteria originally set forth in Matter of Otto v Steinhilber ( 282 NY 71, 76 , supra), with the added requirement that the applicant prove that "the alleged hardship has not been self-created” (Town Law § 267-b [2] [b] [4]).

1994(See, Dodd v Warren, 110 AD2d 807 [2d Dept 1985] [permitting the amendment of the notice of claim, after the expiration of the Statute of Limitations, to add derivative claims based on facts already included in the notice]; Montana v Incorporated Vil. of Lynbrook, 23 AD2d 585 [2d Dept 1965] [undue delay in making application to amend will not defeat it in the absence of prejudice to the opposing party].) In any event, because the added claim arises out of the same transactions and occurrences as the claims asserted in the original notice, it may be interposed timely under the relation back pro

1994(Sullivan v Board of Educ., 154 AD2d 664 [2d Dept 1989].) In view of the above, plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to serve an amended notice of claim is granted.

1994(See, Dodd v Warren, 110 AD2d 807 [2d Dept 1985] [permitting the amendment of the notice of claim, after the expiration of the Statute of Limitations, to add derivative claims based on facts already included in the notice]; Montana v Incorporated Vil. of Lynbrook, 23 AD2d 585 [2d Dept 1965] [undue delay in making application to amend will not defeat it in the absence of prejudice to the opposing party].) In any event, because the added claim arises out of the same transactions and occurrences as the claims asserted in the original notice, it may be interposed timely under the relation back pro

1984Two terms later, in Doran v Salem Inn ( 422 US 922 ), the Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether a Federal District Court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction against enforcement of a local ordinance, enacted by the Town of North Hempstead, “making it unlawful for bar owners and others to permit waitresses, barmaids, and entertainers to appear in their establishments with breasts uncovered or so thinly draped as to appear uncovered” ( 422 US 922, 924 , supra).

1984Two terms later, in Doran v Salem Inn ( 422 US 922 ), the Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether a Federal District Court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction against enforcement of a local ordinance, enacted by the Town of North Hempstead, “making it unlawful for bar owners and others to permit waitresses, barmaids, and entertainers to appear in their establishments with breasts uncovered or so thinly draped as to appear uncovered” ( 422 US 922, 924 , supra).

1984A doctrine establishing so fundamental a substantive constitutional standard must also require that the factfinder will rationally apply that standard to the facts in evidence. * * * A ‘reasonable doubt,’ at a minimum, is one based upon ‘reason.’ Yet a properly instructed jury may occasionally convict even when it can be said that no rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt * * * Under [Matter ofWinship, 397 US 358 ], which established proof beyond a reasonable doubt as an essential of Fourteenth Amendment due process, it follows that when such a conviction occurs in a

1984Whatever artistic or communicative value may attach to topless dancing is overcome by the State’s exercise of its broad powers arising under the Twenty-first Amendment” ( 452 US 714, 718 , supra).

1984Whatever artistic or communicative value may attach to topless dancing is overcome by the State’s exercise of its broad powers arising under the Twenty-first Amendment” ( 452 US 714, 718 , supra).

1984In Lakeland Water Dist. the challenge was to a resolution by the County Water Authority adopting an across-the-board schedule which increased rates and charges of the authority applicable to all its customers.” (Emphasis supplied.) The court added that a challenge of “an ad hoc determination of an individual party’s right of reimbursement [is] a determination more accurately classified as administrative rather than legislative” ( 49 NY2d 224, 232 , supra).

1984In Press v County of Monroe ( 50 NY2d 695, 699 ), the Court of Appeals was called upon to determine the applicable Statute of Limitations in a declaratory judgment action challenging the assessment rolls of a sewer district as affirmed and adopted by the county legislature pursuant to section 271 of the County Law on the ground that the underlying rate schedule was unconstitutional.

1975Defendant argues in a supporting memorandum that dismissal is required where the defendant has suffered legal prejudice (citing People v Townsend, 38 AD2d 569 , supra; People v Collins, 66 Misc 2d 340 ; People v Laskowski, 72 Misc 2d 580 ; People v Lopez, 73 Misc 2d 878 ; and People v Goodman, 44 AD2d 862 ).

1975Defendant argues in a supporting memorandum that dismissal is required where the defendant has suffered legal prejudice (citing People v Townsend, 38 AD2d 569 , supra; People v Collins, 66 Misc 2d 340 ; People v Laskowski, 72 Misc 2d 580 ; People v Lopez, 73 Misc 2d 878 ; and People v Goodman, 44 AD2d 862 ).

1975Defendant argues in a supporting memorandum that dismissal is required where the defendant has suffered legal prejudice (citing People v Townsend, 38 AD2d 569 , supra; People v Collins, 66 Misc 2d 340 ; People v Laskowski, 72 Misc 2d 580 ; People v Lopez, 73 Misc 2d 878 ; and People v Goodman, 44 AD2d 862 ).

1975Defendant argues in a supporting memorandum that dismissal is required where the defendant has suffered legal prejudice (citing People v Townsend, 38 AD2d 569 , supra; People v Collins, 66 Misc 2d 340 ; People v Laskowski, 72 Misc 2d 580 ; People v Lopez, 73 Misc 2d 878 ; and People v Goodman, 44 AD2d 862 ).