defendant failed challenge in New York

2020The defendant's contention that the jury verdicts were repugnant is not preserved for appellate review, as the defendant failed to challenge the verdicts before the jury was discharged ( see People v Alfaro , 66 NY2d 985, 987 ; People v Danon , 167 AD3d 930 , 931).

2020The defendant's contention, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, that the jury's finding of guilt on the count charging him with criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree is irreconcilable with its acquittal of the defendant on the count charging him with menacing in the first degree is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant failed to challenge the verdicts before the jury was discharged ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Alfaro , 66 NY2d 985, 987 ; People v Danon , 167 AD3d 930 , 931).

2016Jan Realty Corp., 63 AD3d 810 [2009]).

2016Jan Realty Corp., 63 AD3d 810 [2009]).

2016Moreover, the defendant failed to challenge the charges underlying the lien in a timely CPLR article 78 proceeding, and thus, is precluded from challenging them in this action to foreclose the tax lien (see Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52, 57 [1978]; NYCTL 2009-A Trust v Tsafatinos, 101 AD3d 1092 [2012]; NYCTL 1998-2 Trust v T.

2016Moreover, the defendant failed to challenge the charges underlying the lien in a timely CPLR article 78 proceeding, and thus, is precluded from challenging them in this action to foreclose the tax lien (see Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52, 57 [1978]; NYCTL 2009-A Trust v Tsafatinos, 101 AD3d 1092 [2012]; NYCTL 1998-2 Trust v T.

2000Since the defendant failed to challenge the reliability of the information conveyed to the detective or the validity of the warrant, the presumption of probable cause remained and the People were not required to make a further evidentiary showing by producing the arrest warrant (see, People v Jenkins, 47 NY2d 722 ; People v McCloud, 182 AD2d 835 ; People v Szczepanik, 55 AD2d 702 ; but see, People v Lopez, 206 AD2d 894 ).

1992Here, since the defendant failed to challenge the reliability of the information conveyed to the arresting officer by the detective, the presumption of probable cause remained intact (see, People v Jenkins, 47 NY2d 722 ; People v Peters, 136 AD2d 750 ).

2020In any event, this contention is without merit, since, as charged to the jury, the acquittal of menacing in the second degree did not negate any essential element of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree ( see People v James , 249 AD2d 919, 919 ).

2015This contention is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant failed to challenge the prospective juror for cause in the trial court (see People v Simmons, 119 AD3d 1343 [2014]; People v Scott, 197 AD2d 644, 645 [1993]).

2001Since the defendant failed to challenge his underlying conviction during the sentencing proceedings, he waived his right to make any allegation of unconstitutionality with regard to that prior conviction (see, CPL 400.15 [7] [b]; People v Young, 255 AD2d 907 ; People v Cooper, 241 AD2d 553 ).

2001Since the defendant failed to challenge his underlying conviction during the sentencing proceedings, he waived his right to make any allegation of unconstitutionality with regard to that prior conviction (see, CPL 400.15 [7] [b]; People v Young, 255 AD2d 907 ; People v Cooper, 241 AD2d 553 ).

2000Since the defendant failed to challenge the reliability of the information conveyed to the detective or the validity of the warrant, the presumption of probable cause remained and the People were not required to make a further evidentiary showing by producing the arrest warrant (see, People v Jenkins, 47 NY2d 722 ; People v McCloud, 182 AD2d 835 ; People v Szczepanik, 55 AD2d 702 ; but see, People v Lopez, 206 AD2d 894 ).

2000Since the defendant failed to challenge the reliability of the information conveyed to the detective or the validity of the warrant, the presumption of probable cause remained and the People were not required to make a further evidentiary showing by producing the arrest warrant (see, People v Jenkins, 47 NY2d 722 ; People v McCloud, 182 AD2d 835 ; People v Szczepanik, 55 AD2d 702 ; but see, People v Lopez, 206 AD2d 894 ).

2000Although the defendant failed to challenge the plaintiffs request for production of the file within the time prescribed by CPLR 3122, the failure of a party to challenge the propriety of a notice for discovery and inspection pursuant to CPLR 3120 within the time prescribed by CPLR 3122 forecloses inquiry into the propriety of the information sought except with regard to material that is privileged pursuant to CPLR 3101 or requests that are palpably improper (see, Otto v Triangle Aviation Servs., 258 AD2d 448, 449 ; Holness v Chrysler Corp., 220 AD2d 721 ; Titleserv, Inc. v Zenobio, 210 AD2d 31

2000Although the defendant failed to challenge the plaintiffs request for production of the file within the time prescribed by CPLR 3122, the failure of a party to challenge the propriety of a notice for discovery and inspection pursuant to CPLR 3120 within the time prescribed by CPLR 3122 forecloses inquiry into the propriety of the information sought except with regard to material that is privileged pursuant to CPLR 3101 or requests that are palpably improper (see, Otto v Triangle Aviation Servs., 258 AD2d 448, 449 ; Holness v Chrysler Corp., 220 AD2d 721 ; Titleserv, Inc. v Zenobio, 210 AD2d 31

2000Although the defendant failed to challenge the plaintiffs request for production of the file within the time prescribed by CPLR 3122, the failure of a party to challenge the propriety of a notice for discovery and inspection pursuant to CPLR 3120 within the time prescribed by CPLR 3122 forecloses inquiry into the propriety of the information sought except with regard to material that is privileged pursuant to CPLR 3101 or requests that are palpably improper (see, Otto v Triangle Aviation Servs., 258 AD2d 448, 449 ; Holness v Chrysler Corp., 220 AD2d 721 ; Titleserv, Inc. v Zenobio, 210 AD2d 31

2000The defendant waived any objection to the Supreme Court’s erroneous charge on burglary in the first degree by acquiescing in the charge (see, People v Ford, 62 NY2d 275 ).

1999The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that his conviction for unlawful imprisonment should merge into the attempted robbery and assault counts for which he was acquitted because the defendant failed to challenge the jury’s verdict on this basis before the trial court (see, People v Chronis, 209 AD2d 712 ).

1995Therefore, this issue is both unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Tutt, 38 NY2d 1011 ; People v Manuli, 156 AD2d 388 ), and beyond our review since the Supreme Court specifically did not address its merits (see, People v Noland, 189 AD2d 829 ).

1995Since the defendant failed to challenge the reasonable doubt instruction, as well as the supplemental instructions which referred to the jurors’ obligation to determine the existence of a reasonable doubt, these claims are unpreserved as a matter of law (People v Jackson, 76 NY2d 908 ), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice.

1995Therefore, any challenge to the ruling on that ground is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282 ; People v Brito, 179 AD2d 666 ; People v Yoong Boom Kim, 170 AD2d 707 ).

1995Therefore, any challenge to the ruling on that ground is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282 ; People v Brito, 179 AD2d 666 ; People v Yoong Boom Kim, 170 AD2d 707 ).

1995Therefore, this issue is both unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Tutt, 38 NY2d 1011 ; People v Manuli, 156 AD2d 388 ), and beyond our review since the Supreme Court specifically did not address its merits (see, People v Noland, 189 AD2d 829 ).

1995Therefore, any challenge to the ruling on that ground is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282 ; People v Brito, 179 AD2d 666 ; People v Yoong Boom Kim, 170 AD2d 707 ).

1993Since the defendant failed to challenge the facial validity of the warrant and since there was no allegation that the police officer who applied for the warrant included in his affidavit statements that he knew were false or that he made statements with reckless disregard for the truth or with deceitful intent, the court erred in suppressing the physical evidence (see, People v Villanueva, 161 AD2d 552 ; People v Buckman, 115 AD2d 267 ; see also, Franks v Delaware, supra; United States v Navarro, 767 F Supp 544 ).

1993Since the defendant failed to challenge the facial validity of the warrant and since there was no allegation that the police officer who applied for the warrant included in his affidavit statements that he knew were false or that he made statements with reckless disregard for the truth or with deceitful intent, the court erred in suppressing the physical evidence (see, People v Villanueva, 161 AD2d 552 ; People v Buckman, 115 AD2d 267 ; see also, Franks v Delaware, supra; United States v Navarro, 767 F Supp 544 ).