protective rule in New York

1992Video, 68 NY2d 296, 303-309 , supra [requiring standards more exacting than those demanded by Supreme Court for issuance of search warrant for videotapes as evidence in obscenity prosecution]; People v Class, 67 NY2d 431, 433 [adhering on remand to earlier holding (see, People v Class, 63 NY2d 491, 494 ) that noneonsensual entry of automobile by police to inspect VIN number violated defendant’s legitimate expectation of privacy under NY Constitution, article I, § 12 (citing, inter alia, Katz v United States, 389 US 347 )]; People v Gokey, 60 NY2d 309, 312 ; People v Gleeson, 36 NY2d 462 ; see

1987To that end, the Court of Appeals has held, as a matter of State constitutional law, that the less protective rule adopted in Illinois v Gates has not supplanted the Aguilar-Spinelli test in cases involving warrantless arrests predicated on hearsay information (see, People v Johnson, supra, at 406; see also, People v P. J.

1992Video, 68 NY2d 296, 303-309 , supra [requiring standards more exacting than those demanded by Supreme Court for issuance of search warrant for videotapes as evidence in obscenity prosecution]; People v Class, 67 NY2d 431, 433 [adhering on remand to earlier holding (see, People v Class, 63 NY2d 491, 494 ) that noneonsensual entry of automobile by police to inspect VIN number violated defendant’s legitimate expectation of privacy under NY Constitution, article I, § 12 (citing, inter alia, Katz v United States, 389 US 347 )]; People v Gokey, 60 NY2d 309, 312 ; People v Gleeson, 36 NY2d 462 ; see

1987Video, supra, at 305; People v Landy, 59 NY2d 369, 375 , supra).

2005The Court concluded that as a matter of law section 27-651 does not apply to “exterior windows, whatever their location or dimensions” ( 4 AD3d 178, 178 [1st Dept 2004]).

2005Further, plaintiff’s expert opined that decedent’s accidental death would have been averted “[i]f the glass was properly tempered and/or a protective bar introduced across the window.” This conclusory testimony was insufficient to raise a question of fact as to whether defendant breached its duty to “maintain[ ] [its] property in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the injury, and the burden of avoiding the risk” (Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233, 241 [1976] [citation and internal quotation marks omitted]).

2004The justification for a more protective rule was rooted in the unique protections guaranteed by New York’s Right to Counsel Clause, which is “ ‘far more expansive than the Federal counterpart’ ” (id. at 439, quoting People v Bing, 76 NY2d 331, 339 [1990]). 4 We noted that “[u]nder both Federal and State law, the right to counsel attaches once criminal proceedings have commenced” and, of particular relevance, in New York “criminal proceedings must be instituted before the police can obtain a warrant” because CPL 120.20 requires an accusatory instrument to be filed before an arrest warrant may b

2004The justification for a more protective rule was rooted in the unique protections guaranteed by New York's Right to Counsel Clause, which is "`far more expansive than the Federal counterpart'" ( id. at 439 , quoting People v Bing, 76 NY2d 331, 339 [1990]). [4] We noted that "[u]nder both Federal and State law, the right to counsel attaches once criminal proceedings have commenced" and, of particular relevance, in New York "criminal proceedings must be instituted before the police can obtain a warrant" because CPL 120.20 requires an accusatory instrument to be filed before an arrest warrant may

2004Finally, no appeal lies from the default judgement itself (see CPLR 5511; Hartwich v Young, 149 AD2d 762, 765 [1989], lv denied 75 NY2d 701 [1989]) and likewise no appeal lies from that part of the March 21, 2003 judgment denying respondents’ motion to reargue (see CPLR 5517; Electric Ins.

2004Respondents’ motion to vacate the default judgment was expeditiously filed and, under the more protective standard applicable to a motion to vacate a default judgment in an article 78 proceeding and this state’s strong public policy in having cases resolved on the merits (see Drucker v Ward, 293 AD2d 891 [2002]; Heinrichs v City of Albany, 239 AD2d 639, 640 [1997]), the better practice would have been to order “that an answer be submitted” pursuant to CPLR 7804 (e).

2004The justification for a more protective rule was rooted in the unique protections guaranteed by New York’s Right to Counsel Clause, which is “ ‘far more expansive than the Federal counterpart’ ” (id. at 439, quoting People v Bing, 76 NY2d 331, 339 [1990]). 4 We noted that “[u]nder both Federal and State law, the right to counsel attaches once criminal proceedings have commenced” and, of particular relevance, in New York “criminal proceedings must be instituted before the police can obtain a warrant” because CPL 120.20 requires an accusatory instrument to be filed before an arrest warrant may b

2004The justification for a more protective rule was rooted in the unique protections guaranteed by New York's Right to Counsel Clause, which is "`far more expansive than the Federal counterpart'" ( id. at 439 , quoting People v Bing, 76 NY2d 331, 339 [1990]). [4] We noted that "[u]nder both Federal and State law, the right to counsel attaches once criminal proceedings have commenced" and, of particular relevance, in New York "criminal proceedings must be instituted before the police can obtain a warrant" because CPL 120.20 requires an accusatory instrument to be filed before an arrest warrant may

1997It follows from the foregoing that DHCR’s extension of the judicial sale exemption to a successor purchaser who did not have rental records sufficient to establish the legal regulated rent is both reasonable and consistent with the underlying purposes of the regulation and, thus, should have been upheld (see, Matter of Salvati v Eimicke, 72 NY2d 784, 791 ["DHCR’s *552 interpretation of the statutes it administers, if not unreasonable or irrational, is entitled to deference”], rearg denied 73 NY2d 995 ; see also, Matter of Ansonia Residents Assn. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renew

1997It follows from the foregoing that DHCR’s extension of the judicial sale exemption to a successor purchaser who did not have rental records sufficient to establish the legal regulated rent is both reasonable and consistent with the underlying purposes of the regulation and, thus, should have been upheld (see, Matter of Salvati v Eimicke, 72 NY2d 784, 791 ["DHCR’s *552 interpretation of the statutes it administers, if not unreasonable or irrational, is entitled to deference”], rearg denied 73 NY2d 995 ; see also, Matter of Ansonia Residents Assn. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renew

1996If the prior owners fraudulently concealed information * * * a plenary action can be brought against them” (Turner, 308 Realty v Spear, supra, at 735).

1992Nor, contrary to the People’s argument, is there any inconsistency in our adopting a more protective rule under our State Constitution in the present case than in our prior decisions involving rights protected by article I, § 12 (see, e.g., People v Keta, majority opn, at 495-496, 496-497; People v Dunn, 77 NY2d 19, 24-25 [holding canine sniff to be an invasion of defendant’s expectation of privacy under art I, § 12]; People v Torres, 74 NY2d 224, 227 [rejecting Supreme Court’s expansive view of "stop and frisk” procedures as applied to automobiles]; Matter of Patchogue-Medford Congress of Tea

1992Nor, contrary to the People’s argument, is there any inconsistency in our adopting a more protective rule under our State Constitution in the present case than in our prior decisions involving rights protected by article I, § 12 (see, e.g., People v Keta, majority opn, at 495-496, 496-497; People v Dunn, 77 NY2d 19, 24-25 [holding canine sniff to be an invasion of defendant’s expectation of privacy under art I, § 12]; People v Torres, 74 NY2d 224, 227 [rejecting Supreme Court’s expansive view of "stop and frisk” procedures as applied to automobiles]; Matter of Patchogue-Medford Congress of Tea

1992Video, 68 NY2d 296, 303-309 , supra [requiring standards more exacting than those demanded by Supreme Court for issuance of search warrant for videotapes as evidence in obscenity prosecution]; People v Class, 67 NY2d 431, 433 [adhering on remand to earlier holding (see, People v Class, 63 NY2d 491, 494 ) that noneonsensual entry of automobile by police to inspect VIN number violated defendant’s legitimate expectation of privacy under NY Constitution, article I, § 12 (citing, inter alia, Katz v United States, 389 US 347 )]; People v Gokey, 60 NY2d 309, 312 ; People v Gleeson, 36 NY2d 462 ; see