diligent inquiry in New York

2025Second, plaintiff made a diligent inquiry and genuine efforts to ascertain the identity of CFS prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations ( see id. ).

2024NO. 62 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/21/2024 provide an affidavit stating that a diligent inquiry had been made to determine the names of such parties (see Volpe v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 213 AD2d 398 [2d Dept 1995]).

2023We further conclude that plaintiff demonstrated that she made a diligent inquiry and genuine efforts to ascertain the identity of Berkshire prior to the running of the statute of limitations ( see Rogers , 31 AD3d at 1120 ; Luckern , 229 AD2d at 254 ).

2023We further conclude that plaintiff demonstrated that she made a diligent inquiry and genuine efforts to ascertain the identity of Berkshire prior to the running of the statute of limitations ( see Rogers , 31 AD3d at 1120 ; Luckern , 229 AD2d at 254 ).

2018Further, as for those claims where plaintiff was unaware of the officers' identities prior to the statute of limitations running, she failed to show that she conducted a diligent inquiry into the actual identities of the intended defendants before the expiration of the statutory period ( see Goldberg v Boatmax://, Inc. , 41 AD3d 255 , 256 (2007); Holmes v City of New York , 132 AD3d 952 [1st Dept 2015]).

2011She served the unidentified officers by an alternative means of service authorized by the court pursuant to CPLR 308 (5) (see Harkness v Doe, 261 AD2d 846 [1999]).

2002The juror’s responses to the court’s diligent inquiry did not demonstrate that he was grossly unqualified or had committed misconduct of a substantial nature (see People v Young, 218 AD2d 767 ; cf. People v Pineda, 269 AD2d 610 ).

2002The juror’s responses to the court’s diligent inquiry did not demonstrate that he was grossly unqualified or had committed misconduct of a substantial nature (see People v Young, 218 AD2d 767 ; cf. People v Pineda, 269 AD2d 610 ).

1995The jurors’ responses failed to demonstrate the gross disqualification or misconduct of a substantial nature required to mandate discharge of a juror under CPL 270.35 (see, People v Matiash, 197 AD2d 794 ; cf., People v Fox, 172 AD2d 218 ).

1995The jurors’ responses failed to demonstrate the gross disqualification or misconduct of a substantial nature required to mandate discharge of a juror under CPL 270.35 (see, People v Matiash, 197 AD2d 794 ; cf., People v Fox, 172 AD2d 218 ).

1988(Cf., People v Ellis, 54 AD2d 1052 [1976].) The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, in United States v Silverman (449 F2d 1341 [1971]) held that there is no actual prejudice to defendant where a juror who had no difficulty understanding the oral testimony, but was unable to read English, was included in the jury panel.

1988The record shows that the trial court made a diligent inquiry of the jurors as to whether their knowledge of the arrest of their fellow juror’s nephew for murder would affect the impartiality of their deliberations (see, People v Anderson, 70 NY2d 729, 730 ; People v Lilly, 139 AD2d 671 , lv denied 72 NY2d 862 ).

1988The record shows that the trial court made a diligent inquiry of the jurors as to whether their knowledge of the arrest of their fellow juror’s nephew for murder would affect the impartiality of their deliberations (see, People v Anderson, 70 NY2d 729, 730 ; People v Lilly, 139 AD2d 671 , lv denied 72 NY2d 862 ).

1935A careless or dishonest inquiry affords no protection.” (Stokes v. Stokes, 198 N. Y. 301, 308 .) Furthermore, the proof of meretricious relations between decedent and the respondent, followed by long-continued cohabitation, and the evidence that decedent acknowledged to various individuals that respondent was his wife' and she was so regarded, is not sufficient to establish a common-law marriage (Graham v. Graham, 211 App. Div. 580, 583 ), especially in view of the legal impediment created by decedent’s existing marriage to appellant which he had taken no legal steps to annul.

1935A careless or dishonest inquiry affords no protection.” (Stokes v. Stokes, 198 N. Y. 301, 308 .) Furthermore, the proof of meretricious relations between decedent and the respondent, followed by long-continued cohabitation, and the evidence that decedent acknowledged to various individuals that respondent was his wife' and she was so regarded, is not sufficient to establish a common-law marriage (Graham v. Graham, 211 App. Div. 580, 583 ), especially in view of the legal impediment created by decedent’s existing marriage to appellant which he had taken no legal steps to annul.

1908All of this was to show and did show that the defendant knew that her absent husband was alive when she contracted marriage with the plaintiff, or, which would be of the same legal effect, that she could have ascertained that fact by the diligent inquiry which she was obliged by law to make before contracting such marriage in order to justify it as valid in its inception under the statute already referred to (Matter of Tyler, 80 Hun, 406 ; Gall v. Gall, 114 N. Y. 109 ).

1908All of this was to show and did show that the defendant knew that her absent husband was alive when she contracted marriage with the plaintiff, or, which would be of the same legal effect, that she could have ascertained that fact by the diligent inquiry which she was obliged by law to make before contracting such marriage in order to justify it as valid in its inception under the statute already referred to (Matter of Tyler, 80 Hun, 406 ; Gall v. Gall, 114 N. Y. 109 ).