contentions hearing in New York

2020The determination that the petitioner was guilty of the charges was supported by substantial evidence ( see Matter of Foster v Coughlin , 76 NY2d 964, 966 ).

2020Contrary to the petitioner's contentions that the hearing officer was biased and his guilt was predetermined, "[t]he record demonstrates that the hearing was conducted in a fair and impartial manner and that the determination was not the result of any alleged bias on the part of the hearing officer" ( Matter of Phillips v Lee , 115 AD3d 957, 958 ).

2011Further, a hearing was required to determine the merits of the defendant’s contention that he did not receive the effective assistance of counsel because trial counsel did not properly investigate his criminal history (see People v Mobley, 59 AD3d 741 [2009]; People v Garcia, 19 AD3d 17 [2005]; People v Perron, 273 AD2d 549 [2000]).

2011Further, a hearing was required to determine the merits of the defendant’s contention that he did not receive the effective assistance of counsel because trial counsel did not properly investigate his criminal history (see People v Mobley, 59 AD3d 741 [2009]; People v Garcia, 19 AD3d 17 [2005]; People v Perron, 273 AD2d 549 [2000]).

2011In addition, the defendant’s contentions required a hearing (see People v Perron, 273 AD2d 549 [2000]).

2011Further, a hearing was required to determine the merits of the defendant’s contention that he did not receive the effective assistance of counsel because trial counsel did not properly investigate his criminal history (see People v Mobley, 59 AD3d 741 [2009]; People v Garcia, 19 AD3d 17 [2005]; People v Perron, 273 AD2d 549 [2000]).

2003In any event, those motions were properly denied (see People v Dolan, 2 AD3d 744 [2003] [decided herewith]).

2001Since there must be a new trial, we note that there is no merit to the defendant’s contentions that the hearing court erred in denying suppression of his statements (see, People v Cea, 237 AD2d 617 ), and certain physical evidence (see, People v Love, 84 NY2d 917 ; People v Palma, 243 AD2d 509 ; People v Biro, 227 AD2d 944 ).

2001Such claims are not properly before this Court on direct appeal (see, People v Grazzette, 211 AD2d 822 ; People v Dyson, 200 AD2d 756 ).

2001Such claims are not properly before this Court on direct appeal (see, People v Grazzette, 211 AD2d 822 ; People v Dyson, 200 AD2d 756 ).

2001Since there must be a new trial, we note that there is no merit to the defendant’s contentions that the hearing court erred in denying suppression of his statements (see, People v Cea, 237 AD2d 617 ), and certain physical evidence (see, People v Love, 84 NY2d 917 ; People v Palma, 243 AD2d 509 ; People v Biro, 227 AD2d 944 ).

2001Since there must be a new trial, we note that there is no merit to the defendant’s contentions that the hearing court erred in denying suppression of his statements (see, People v Cea, 237 AD2d 617 ), and certain physical evidence (see, People v Love, 84 NY2d 917 ; People v Palma, 243 AD2d 509 ; People v Biro, 227 AD2d 944 ).

2001Since there must be a new trial, we note that there is no merit to the defendant’s contentions that the hearing court erred in denying suppression of his statements (see, People v Cea, 237 AD2d 617 ), and certain physical evidence (see, People v Love, 84 NY2d 917 ; People v Palma, 243 AD2d 509 ; People v Biro, 227 AD2d 944 ).

1997Further, we reject the contentions that the doctrine of duress (see, Overall v Klotz, 52 F3d 398, 404-405; see also, Steo v Cucuzza, 213 AD2d 624, 626 ; Zoe G. v Frederick F. G., supra) and the “delayed discovery” rule (see, Bassile v Covenant House, 191 AD2d 188 , Iv denied 82 NY2d 656 ) have any application to this case.

1997Further, we reject the contentions that the doctrine of duress (see, Overall v Klotz, 52 F3d 398, 404-405; see also, Steo v Cucuzza, 213 AD2d 624, 626 ; Zoe G. v Frederick F. G., supra) and the “delayed discovery” rule (see, Bassile v Covenant House, 191 AD2d 188 , Iv denied 82 NY2d 656 ) have any application to this case.

1995Indeed, the defendant’s contentions of error in this regard are clearly meritorious (see, People v Luperena, 159 AD2d 727, 729 ).

1995Moreover, we are not persuaded that the court’s charge as a whole adequately conveyed the appropriate standards (cf., People v Luperena, supra).

1993Additionally, the plaintiffs’ contentions that the defense counsel improperly influenced the jury by references to the plaintiff driver’s attire or use of drugs or medication at the time of the incident are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPLR 4017, 5501 [a] [3], [4]), or meritless (cf., Goodstein v Ankor Leasing, 51 AD2d 722 ).

1993We find no merit to the defendant’s contentions that his waiver of his right to counsel was not knowingly and voluntarily made (see, People v Tineo, 144 AD2d 507 ), and that his confession was improperly induced by the interrogating officer’s statements (see, People v Jackson, 143 AD2d 471 ; People v Torres, 182 AD2d 587 ).

1993We find no merit to the defendant’s contentions that his waiver of his right to counsel was not knowingly and voluntarily made (see, People v Tineo, 144 AD2d 507 ), and that his confession was improperly induced by the interrogating officer’s statements (see, People v Jackson, 143 AD2d 471 ; People v Torres, 182 AD2d 587 ).

1993We note that the defendant’s contentions of error with respect to the introduction of the currency are unpreserved for appellate review, since trial counsel failed to interpose a timely objection to the People’s offer of the currency into evidence (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245 ).

1993We find no merit to the defendant’s contentions that his waiver of his right to counsel was not knowingly and voluntarily made (see, People v Tineo, 144 AD2d 507 ), and that his confession was improperly induced by the interrogating officer’s statements (see, People v Jackson, 143 AD2d 471 ; People v Torres, 182 AD2d 587 ).

1993Finally, the defendant’s contentions of error with respect to the prosecutor’s summation are either unpreserved for appellate review or lacking in merit (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Balls, 69 NY2d 641 ; see also, People v Arce, 42 NY2d 179 ; People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105 ).

1993Finally, the defendant’s contentions of error with respect to the prosecutor’s summation are either unpreserved for appellate review or lacking in merit (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Balls, 69 NY2d 641 ; see also, People v Arce, 42 NY2d 179 ; People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105 ).

1991W., 136 AD2d 549 ) and that the hearing court erred in failing to appoint a law guardian (see, Richard D. v Wendy P., 47 NY2d 943 ).

1991W., 136 AD2d 549 ) and that the hearing court erred in failing to appoint a law guardian (see, Richard D. v Wendy P., 47 NY2d 943 ).

1989As to those contentions which were properly preserved, we note that although some remarks perhaps could have been better left unsaid, they did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see, People v Rodriguez, 143 AD2d 109 ).

1989The defendant’s contentions that the hearing court erred in denying those branches of the omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and identification testimony have been addressed and rejected by this court on his codefendants’ appeals (see, People v Brown, 147 AD2d 651 ; People v Finley, 145 AD2d 434 ).

1989The defendant’s contentions that the hearing court erred in denying those branches of the omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and identification testimony have been addressed and rejected by this court on his codefendants’ appeals (see, People v Brown, 147 AD2d 651 ; People v Finley, 145 AD2d 434 ).