need hearing in New York

2019"Generally, [d]eterminations affecting custody and visitation should be made following a full evidentiary hearing' " ( Lauzonis v Lauzonis , 120 AD3d 922, 923 [4th Dept 2014]; see Matter of Naughton-General v Naughton , 242 AD2d 937 , 938 [4th Dept 1997]), and we conclude that the allegations in the mother's petition "established the need for a hearing on the issue whether [her] relocation is in the best interests of the child" ( Matter of Stevens v Stevens , 286 AD2d 890, 890 [4th Dept 2001]; see Liverani v Liverani , 15 AD3d 858, 858-859 [4th Dept 2005]).

2014Generally, “[d]eterminations affecting custody and visitation should be made following a full evidentiary hearing” (Matter of Naughton-General v Naughton, 242 AD2d 937, 938 [1997]; see Matter of Pollard v Pollard, 63 AD3d 1628, 1628 [2009]), and we conclude that the submissions of defendant in support of her motion “established the need for a hearing on the issue whether [her] relocation is in the best interests of the child[ren]” (Matter of Stevens v Stevens, 286 AD2d 890, 890 [2001]; see Liverani v Liverani, 15 AD3d 858, 858-859 [2005]).

2019"Generally, [d]eterminations affecting custody and visitation should be made following a full evidentiary hearing' " ( Lauzonis v Lauzonis , 120 AD3d 922, 923 [4th Dept 2014]; see Matter of Naughton-General v Naughton , 242 AD2d 937 , 938 [4th Dept 1997]), and we conclude that the allegations in the mother's petition "established the need for a hearing on the issue whether [her] relocation is in the best interests of the child" ( Matter of Stevens v Stevens , 286 AD2d 890, 890 [4th Dept 2001]; see Liverani v Liverani , 15 AD3d 858, 858-859 [4th Dept 2005]).

2014Generally, “[d]eterminations affecting custody and visitation should be made following a full evidentiary hearing” (Matter of Naughton-General v Naughton, 242 AD2d 937, 938 [1997]; see Matter of Pollard v Pollard, 63 AD3d 1628, 1628 [2009]), and we conclude that the submissions of defendant in support of her motion “established the need for a hearing on the issue whether [her] relocation is in the best interests of the child[ren]” (Matter of Stevens v Stevens, 286 AD2d 890, 890 [2001]; see Liverani v Liverani, 15 AD3d 858, 858-859 [2005]).

2012The defendant’s conclusory, unsupported assertion that the detective made materially false representations in his affidavit supporting the application for an eavesdropping warrant is insufficient to trigger the need for a hearing (see Franks v Delaware, 438 US 154, 171 [1978]; People v Bavisotto, 179 AD2d 1055 [1992]; People v Maucieri, 125 AD2d 600, 601 [1986]).

2012The defendant’s conclusory, unsupported assertion that the detective made materially false representations in his affidavit supporting the application for an eavesdropping warrant is insufficient to trigger the need for a hearing (see Franks v Delaware, 438 US 154, 171 [1978]; People v Bavisotto, 179 AD2d 1055 [1992]; People v Maucieri, 125 AD2d 600, 601 [1986]).

2023In any event, the basis offered by defendant for that request amounted to communication difficulties — which counsel advised County Court were the result of defendant's failure to show up for scheduled meetings or return telephone calls — defendant's discomfort with counsel's work as an assistant district attorney years earlier, and defendant's generalized concern that counsel did not have his "best interests in mind." Those assertions did not suggest that good cause for substitution, such as irreconcilable differences or a conflict of interest, existed, nor did they "trigger the need for an i

2016Defendant’s nonspecific complaint that defense counsel had been dishonest with him did not constitute a request for substitution of counsel and thus “did not trigger the need for an inquiry into whether good cause existed for substitution” (People v Mitchell, 129 AD3d 1319, 1321 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1041 [2015]).

2019"Generally, [d]eterminations affecting custody and visitation should be made following a full evidentiary hearing' " ( Lauzonis v Lauzonis , 120 AD3d 922, 923 [4th Dept 2014]; see Matter of Naughton-General v Naughton , 242 AD2d 937 , 938 [4th Dept 1997]), and we conclude that the allegations in the mother's petition "established the need for a hearing on the issue whether [her] relocation is in the best interests of the child" ( Matter of Stevens v Stevens , 286 AD2d 890, 890 [4th Dept 2001]; see Liverani v Liverani , 15 AD3d 858, 858-859 [4th Dept 2005]).

2014Generally, “[d]eterminations affecting custody and visitation should be made following a full evidentiary hearing” (Matter of Naughton-General v Naughton, 242 AD2d 937, 938 [1997]; see Matter of Pollard v Pollard, 63 AD3d 1628, 1628 [2009]), and we conclude that the submissions of defendant in support of her motion “established the need for a hearing on the issue whether [her] relocation is in the best interests of the child[ren]” (Matter of Stevens v Stevens, 286 AD2d 890, 890 [2001]; see Liverani v Liverani, 15 AD3d 858, 858-859 [2005]).

2025Otherwise, section 10-133(c) does not prohibit carrying or using knives in self-defense in non-public areas—most significantly, in the home, where "the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute." District of [*4]Columbia v. Heller , 554 U.S. 570, 628 (2008). [FN3] Taylor has not otherwise shown that this particular kind of restriction fails under a facial challenge brought pursuant to Bruen and its progeny.

2025Otherwise, section 10-133(c) does not prohibit carrying or using knives in self-defense in non-public areas—most significantly, in the home, where "the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute." District of [*4]Columbia v. Heller , 554 U.S. 570, 628 (2008). [FN3] Taylor has not otherwise shown that this particular kind of restriction fails under a facial challenge brought pursuant to Bruen and its progeny.

2014Generally, “[d]eterminations affecting custody and visitation should be made following a full evidentiary hearing” (Matter of Naughton-General v Naughton, 242 AD2d 937, 938 [1997]; see Matter of Pollard v Pollard, 63 AD3d 1628, 1628 [2009]), and we conclude that the submissions of defendant in support of her motion “established the need for a hearing on the issue whether [her] relocation is in the best interests of the child[ren]” (Matter of Stevens v Stevens, 286 AD2d 890, 890 [2001]; see Liverani v Liverani, 15 AD3d 858, 858-859 [2005]).

2014Generally, “[d]eterminations affecting custody and visitation should be made following a full evidentiary hearing” (Matter of Naughton-General v Naughton, 242 AD2d 937, 938 [1997]; see Matter of Pollard v Pollard, 63 AD3d 1628, 1628 [2009]), and we conclude that the submissions of defendant in support of her motion “established the need for a hearing on the issue whether [her] relocation is in the best interests of the child[ren]” (Matter of Stevens v Stevens, 286 AD2d 890, 890 [2001]; see Liverani v Liverani, 15 AD3d 858, 858-859 [2005]).

2014While no single factor is determinative in a relocation case, “economic necessity . . . may present a particularly persuasive ground for permitting the proposed move” (Tropea, 87 NY2d at 739 ; see Matter of Thomas v Thomas, 79 AD3d 1829, 1830 [2010]; Matter of Cynthia L.C. v James L.S., 30 AD3d 1085, 1085-1086 [2006]).

2014While no single factor is determinative in a relocation case, “economic necessity . . . may present a particularly persuasive ground for permitting the proposed move” (Tropea, 87 NY2d at 739 ; see Matter of Thomas v Thomas, 79 AD3d 1829, 1830 [2010]; Matter of Cynthia L.C. v James L.S., 30 AD3d 1085, 1085-1086 [2006]).

2010In any event, the medical bills and insurance documentation attached to the victim impact statement adequately support the amount of restitution ordered, thus obviating the need for a hearing (see People v Kim, 91 NY2d 407, 411 [1998]; People v Golgoski, 40 AD3d 1138, 1138 [2007]; People v Drew, 16 AD3d 840, 841 [2005]).

2005And, in any event, the record evidence of the victim’s medical costs, as well as the itemized damages to the police vehicles, amply supports the finding of the amount of restitution ordered, thereby obviating the need for a hearing on the issue (see Penal Law § 60.27 [2]; People v Kim, 91 NY2d 407, 410-411 [1998]; People v Stedge, 250 AD2d 880, 880 [1998]; People v Masten, 215 AD2d 892, 893 [1995], lv denied 86 NY2d 782 [1995]).

2016The court properly exercised its discretion in granting the People’s Molineux application, inasmuch as the evidence that the People proposed to introduce at trial had substantial probative value with respect to issues other than criminal propensity, and the probative value of the evidence outweighed the danger of undue prejudice to defendant (see People v Cass, 18 NY3d 553, 560 [2012]).

2016The court properly exercised its discretion in granting the People’s Molineux application, inasmuch as the evidence that the People proposed to introduce at trial had substantial probative value with respect to issues other than criminal propensity, and the probative value of the evidence outweighed the danger of undue prejudice to defendant (see People v Cass, 18 NY3d 553, 560 [2012]).

2014While no single factor is determinative in a relocation case, “economic necessity . . . may present a particularly persuasive ground for permitting the proposed move” (Tropea, 87 NY2d at 739 ; see Matter of Thomas v Thomas, 79 AD3d 1829, 1830 [2010]; Matter of Cynthia L.C. v James L.S., 30 AD3d 1085, 1085-1086 [2006]).

2014While no single factor is determinative in a relocation case, “economic necessity . . . may present a particularly persuasive ground for permitting the proposed move” (Tropea, 87 NY2d at 739 ; see Matter of Thomas v Thomas, 79 AD3d 1829, 1830 [2010]; Matter of Cynthia L.C. v James L.S., 30 AD3d 1085, 1085-1086 [2006]).

2012The defendant’s conclusory, unsupported assertion that the detective made materially false representations in his affidavit supporting the application for an eavesdropping warrant is insufficient to trigger the need for a hearing (see Franks v Delaware, 438 US 154, 171 [1978]; People v Bavisotto, 179 AD2d 1055 [1992]; People v Maucieri, 125 AD2d 600, 601 [1986]).

2012The defendant’s conclusory, unsupported assertion that the detective made materially false representations in his affidavit supporting the application for an eavesdropping warrant is insufficient to trigger the need for a hearing (see Franks v Delaware, 438 US 154, 171 [1978]; People v Bavisotto, 179 AD2d 1055 [1992]; People v Maucieri, 125 AD2d 600, 601 [1986]).

2012This Court has noted that even in the absence of a physician-patient relationship, the failure to disclose a potentially injurious medical condition may constitute ordinary negligence where the person examined is likely to construe silence to mean that he or she is in good health (see McKinney v Bellevue Hosp., 183 AD2d 563, 565 [1992] [differential diagnosis of pyoinflammatory disease or lung neoplasm following pre-employment chest X ray]).

2012This Court has noted that even in the absence of a physician-patient relationship, the failure to disclose a potentially injurious medical condition may constitute ordinary negligence where the person examined is likely to construe silence to mean that he or she is in good health (see McKinney v Bellevue Hosp., 183 AD2d 563, 565 [1992] [differential diagnosis of pyoinflammatory disease or lung neoplasm following pre-employment chest X ray]).

2005The submissions of plaintiff in support of the application “established the need for a hearing on the issue whether [her] relocation is in the best interests of the child[ren]” (Matter of Stevens v Stevens, 286 AD2d 890 , 890 [2001], citing Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727, 738-739 [1996]).

2001In any event, the affidavit of respondent father established the need for a hearing on the issue whether his relocation is in the best interests of the child (see, Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727, 738-739 ).

2011Moreover, the defendant’s conclusory, unsupported assertion that the officer’s warrant affidavit was untruthful is insufficient to trigger the need for a hearing (see CPL 710.60 [1], [3] [b]; People v Gaviria, 183 AD2d 913, 914 [1992]).

2001The conclusory affidavit of defendants’ attorney without personal knowledge of the facts was insufficient to trigger the need for a hearing (see, Franks v Delaware, supra, at 171; People v Gaviria, 183 AD2d 913, 914 , lv denied 81 NY2d 839 , 1014).

2008An indictment was returned prior to the felony hearing, thereby obviating the need for a hearing and rendering defendant’s right thereto moot (see People v Frazier, 202 AD2d 985, 985 [1994], lv denied 83 NY2d 910 [1994]; People v Brown, 184 AD2d 856, 857 [1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 927 [1992]; People v Phillips, 88 AD2d 672, 672 [1982]; see also People ex rel.

1994An indictment was returned prior to the adjourned hearing date, thereby obviating the need for a hearing (see, People v Brown, 184 AD2d 856 , lv denied 80 NY2d 927 ; People v Phillips, 88 AD2d 672).

2008An indictment was returned prior to the felony hearing, thereby obviating the need for a hearing and rendering defendant’s right thereto moot (see People v Frazier, 202 AD2d 985, 985 [1994], lv denied 83 NY2d 910 [1994]; People v Brown, 184 AD2d 856, 857 [1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 927 [1992]; People v Phillips, 88 AD2d 672, 672 [1982]; see also People ex rel.

1994An indictment was returned prior to the adjourned hearing date, thereby obviating the need for a hearing (see, People v Brown, 184 AD2d 856 , lv denied 80 NY2d 927 ; People v Phillips, 88 AD2d 672).

2005Contrary to the further contention of petitioner, it was not “improper for the fact-finding determination to be made by a person who did not preside at the . . . hearing” (Matter of David C. v New York State Dept. of Social Servs., 203 AD2d 964, 965 [1994]; see Matter of Simpson v Wolansky, 38 NY2d 391, 394 [1975]) and petitioner was not deprived of due process thereby (see Matter of Gupta v New York State Dept. of Social Servs., 208 AD2d 629 [1994]).

1984Such misconduct while he was chief of pathology also undoubtedly affected the work of those under his supervision, particularly those he required to assist him in his own outside practice. 11 Special Term also properly found that the hearings held respecting the charges against Dr. Papadakis, after the decisions by the Federal courts finding the need for such a hearing, afforded Dr. Papadakis all of the due process to which he was entitled (Matter of Hecht v Monaghan, 307 NY 461 ; Matter of Simpson v Wolansky, 38 NY2d 391 ). 11 The hearing officer recommended termination of Dr. Papadakis’ empl

2026To the extent that defendant's contention survives the plea and valid waiver of the right to appeal (<i>see People v Morris</i>, 94 AD3d 1450, 1451 [4th Dept 2012], <i>lv denied</i> 19 NY3d 976 [2012]), we conclude that it lacks merit inasmuch as defendant's "nonspecific complaint [about] defense counsel [at sentencing] did not constitute a request for substitution of counsel and thus did not trigger the need for an inquiry into whether good cause existed for substitution" (<i>People v Matthews</i>, 142 AD3d 1354, 1355 [4th Dept 2016], <i>lv denied </i> 28 NY3d 1125 [2016]).</p> <p>Entered: Ap

2026To the extent that defendant's contention survives the plea and valid waiver of the right to appeal ( see People v Morris , 94 AD3d 1450, 1451 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 976 [2012]), we conclude that it lacks merit inasmuch as defendant's "nonspecific complaint [about] defense counsel [at sentencing] did not constitute a request for substitution of counsel and thus did not trigger the need for an inquiry into whether good cause existed for substitution" ( People v Matthews , 142 AD3d 1354, 1355 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1125 [2016]).