evidence produced hearing in New York

2017The ambiguity in the video alleged by petitioner regarding his role in the incident raised a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to decide, and was resolved by the evidence produced at the hearing, including the testimony of the correction officer who witnessed the incident (see Matter of Redmon v Smith, 141 AD3d 1071, 1071 [2016]; Matter of Thousand v Prack, 139 AD3d 1212, 1212 [2016]).

2017The ambiguity in the video alleged by petitioner regarding his role in the incident raised a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to decide, and was resolved by the evidence produced at the hearing, including the testimony of the correction officer who witnessed the incident (see Matter of Redmon v Smith, 141 AD3d 1071, 1071 [2016]; Matter of Thousand v Prack, 139 AD3d 1212, 1212 [2016]).

2017The ambiguity in the video alleged by petitioner regarding his role in the incident raised a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to decide, and was resolved by the evidence produced at the hearing, including the testimony of the correction officer who witnessed the incident (see Matter of Redmon v Smith, 141 AD3d 1071, 1071 [2016]; Matter of Thousand v Prack, 139 AD3d 1212, 1212 [2016]).

2017The ambiguity in the video alleged by petitioner regarding his role in the incident raised a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to decide, and was resolved by the evidence produced at the hearing, including the testimony of the correction officer who witnessed the incident (see Matter of Redmon v Smith, 141 AD3d 1071, 1071 [2016]; Matter of Thousand v Prack, 139 AD3d 1212, 1212 [2016]).

2017"It is a well-settled principle of equity that courts do not look favorably upon the forfeiture of leases" ( 2246 Holding Corp. v. Nolasco , 52 AD3d 377 [1st Dept 2008][citations omitted]; see also Dino Realty Corp. v. Khan , 46 Misc 3d 71 [App Term 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014][stating that "the law abhors forfeiture of leases" and that "it is the policy of New York State to prevent unnecessary evictions, particularly of rent-stabilized tenants" [internal citations omitted]).

2017“It is a well-settled principle of equity that courts do not look favorably upon the forfeiture of leases” (2246 Holding Corp. v Nolasco, 52 AD3d 377, 378 [1st Dept 2008] [citations omitted]; see also Dino Realty Corp. v Khan, 46 Misc 3d 71, 72 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014] [stating that “(t)he law abhors the forfeiture of leases” and that “it is the policy of (New York State) to prevent unnecessary evictions, particularly of rent-stabilized tenants” (citations omitted)]).

2017"It is a well-settled principle of equity that courts do not look favorably upon the forfeiture of leases" ( 2246 Holding Corp. v. Nolasco , 52 AD3d 377 [1st Dept 2008][citations omitted]; see also Dino Realty Corp. v. Khan , 46 Misc 3d 71 [App Term 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014][stating that "the law abhors forfeiture of leases" and that "it is the policy of New York State to prevent unnecessary evictions, particularly of rent-stabilized tenants" [internal citations omitted]).

2017“It is a well-settled principle of equity that courts do not look favorably upon the forfeiture of leases” (2246 Holding Corp. v Nolasco, 52 AD3d 377, 378 [1st Dept 2008] [citations omitted]; see also Dino Realty Corp. v Khan, 46 Misc 3d 71, 72 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014] [stating that “(t)he law abhors the forfeiture of leases” and that “it is the policy of (New York State) to prevent unnecessary evictions, particularly of rent-stabilized tenants” (citations omitted)]).

2011Based on our review of the record and, in particular, respondent’s failure to identify with any particularity what interest, if any, would have been protected by the appointment of a guardian ad litem, we find that Family Courfis decision denying his application was not an abuse of its discretion and that the evidence produced at the hearing “did not establish that [respondent] was incapable of understanding the proceedings, defending [his] rights, or assisting [his] counsel” (Matter of Shawndalaya II., 31 AD3d 823, 825 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 714 [2006]; see Matter of Leala T., 55 AD3d 1007,

2011As for respondent’s claim that he did not abandon his children, petitioner was required to establish by clear and convincing evidence that respondent failed to contact, visit of communicate with the children or petitioner’s representatives during the six-month period prior to the petition being filed (see Social Services Law § 384-b [4] [b]; [5] [a]; Matter of Gabriella I. [Jessica J.], 79 AD3d 1317, 1318 [2010]; Matter of Kaitlyn E. [Lyndsay E.], 75 AD3d 695, 696 [2010]).

2011Finally, we find no evidence of hearing officer bias in the record, but rather that the determination was the result of the evidence produced at the hearing (see Matter of Hamilton v Bezio, 76 AD3d 1125 , 1126 [2010]; Matter of Ortiz v Fischer, 75 AD3d 1042, 1043 [2010]).

2011As for respondent’s claim that he did not abandon his children, petitioner was required to establish by clear and convincing evidence that respondent failed to contact, visit of communicate with the children or petitioner’s representatives during the six-month period prior to the petition being filed (see Social Services Law § 384-b [4] [b]; [5] [a]; Matter of Gabriella I. [Jessica J.], 79 AD3d 1317, 1318 [2010]; Matter of Kaitlyn E. [Lyndsay E.], 75 AD3d 695, 696 [2010]).

2011Based on our review of the record and, in particular, respondent’s failure to identify with any particularity what interest, if any, would have been protected by the appointment of a guardian ad litem, we find that Family Courfis decision denying his application was not an abuse of its discretion and that the evidence produced at the hearing “did not establish that [respondent] was incapable of understanding the proceedings, defending [his] rights, or assisting [his] counsel” (Matter of Shawndalaya II., 31 AD3d 823, 825 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 714 [2006]; see Matter of Leala T., 55 AD3d 1007,

2011Based on our review of the record and, in particular, respondent’s failure to identify with any particularity what interest, if any, would have been protected by the appointment of a guardian ad litem, we find that Family Courfis decision denying his application was not an abuse of its discretion and that the evidence produced at the hearing “did not establish that [respondent] was incapable of understanding the proceedings, defending [his] rights, or assisting [his] counsel” (Matter of Shawndalaya II., 31 AD3d 823, 825 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 714 [2006]; see Matter of Leala T., 55 AD3d 1007,

1932(Matter of Thompson, 121 N. Y. 277, 279 ; 127 id. 463, 472; Perkins v. State of New York, 113 id. 660; Adirondack Power & Light Corp. v. Evans, 226 App. Div. 490 ; Matter of Bronx Parkway Commission, 192 id. 412, 418, 419; affd., 230 N. Y. 607 ; Matter of Corporation Counsel of City of New York, 188 App. Div. 668, 671 ; Matter of Castle Heights Water Co. v. Price, 178 id. 687, 688 ; New York Central & H.

1932(Matter of Thompson, 121 N. Y. 277, 279 ; 127 id. 463, 472; Perkins v. State of New York, 113 id. 660; Adirondack Power & Light Corp. v. Evans, 226 App. Div. 490 ; Matter of Bronx Parkway Commission, 192 id. 412, 418, 419; affd., 230 N. Y. 607 ; Matter of Corporation Counsel of City of New York, 188 App. Div. 668, 671 ; Matter of Castle Heights Water Co. v. Price, 178 id. 687, 688 ; New York Central & H.