confluence factors in New York

2012As the Surrogate properly concluded, the terms of the 2007 will are at least as attributable to the confluence of factors arising out of the dissension within the family as to any undue influence by Keiko (see Walther, 6 NY2d at 55-56 [record failed to raise a question of fact as to undue influence to permit the question to go to the jury]; Ryan, 34 AD3d at 213-214 ).

2012As the Surrogate properly concluded, the terms of the 2007 will are at least as attributable to the confluence of factors arising out of the dissension within the family as to any undue influence by Keiko (see Walther, 6 NY2d at 55-56 [record failed to raise a question of fact as to undue influence to permit the question to go to the jury]; Ryan, 34 AD3d at 213-214 ).

1991Co., 112 AD2d 891, 894 ).

1988Co., 112 AD2d 891, 892 ), the case before us presents a confluence of factors so favoring venue in Nassau County that we conclude the court abused its discretion and erred in denying the motion.

2025First, the Family Court determined to commence the hearing in the mother's absence, even though she was proceeding pro se and had made representations to the court through her legal advisor that she had been directed to quarantine by her medical provider and was requesting an adjournment ( see Matter of Jonathan N., Jr. [Jonathan N., Sr.] , 194 AD3d 815, 816 ; Matter of Chloe N. [Joshua N.] , 143 AD3d 1114, 1116 ).

2025First, the Family Court determined to commence the hearing in the mother's absence, even though she was proceeding pro se and had made representations to the court through her legal advisor that she had been directed to quarantine by her medical provider and was requesting an adjournment ( see Matter of Jonathan N., Jr. [Jonathan N., Sr.] , 194 AD3d 815, 816 ; Matter of Chloe N. [Joshua N.] , 143 AD3d 1114, 1116 ).

2022Under the circumstances, we conclude that the "brief and inadvertent" closing of the courtroom ( Peterson , 81 NY2d at 825 ) did not violate defendant's right to a public trial ( see People v Gonzalez , 237 AD2d 302, 302-303 [2d Dept 1997], lv denied 89 NY2d 1093 [1997]).

2019Instead, "a confluence of factors brings [decedent's] activity within the statute: his position as a [welder] who routinely undertook an enumerated activity, his employment with a company engaged under a contract to carry out an enumerated activity, and his participation in an enumerated activity during the specific project" ( id. at 883 ).

2019The majority nonetheless concludes that, while Alstom personnel were integrally involved in the renovation of the air preheater structure throughout the construction project, Labor Law § 240 (1) does not apply because decedent "had no responsibility for or involvement with the construction project in New Hampshire." Although the renovation project was not "at the same site where the injury occurred" ( Prats , 100 NY2d at 883 ), the Court of Appeals has explicitly stated that "it is neither pragmatic nor consistent with the spirit of the statute to isolate the moment of injury and ignore the ge

2018Here, the confluence of factors (hurricane, family trapped in damaged house, unavailability of fire and EMS, beam falling directly on Officer Atchinson and trapped girl) is well within that definition-certainly more so than a police detective getting up from a desk chair and twisting his knee, which we held to be accidental in McCambridge v. McGuire, 62 N.Y.2d 563 , 567, 479 N.Y.S.2d 171 , 468 N.E.2d 9 (1984).

2018Here, the confluence of factors (hurricane, family trapped in damaged house, unavailability of fire and EMS, beam falling directly on Officer Atchinson and trapped girl) is well within that definition-certainly more so than a police detective getting up from a desk chair and twisting his knee, which we held to be accidental in McCambridge v. McGuire, 62 N.Y.2d 563 , 567, 479 N.Y.S.2d 171 , 468 N.E.2d 9 (1984).

2009Bayham v Meloni, 182 Misc 2d at 833 .) IV Conclusion A confluence of factors dictate a new final parole revocation hearing for petitioner.

2009The finding of a due process violation here is not in conflict with Brody v Village of Port Chester ( 434 F3d 121 [2005]).

2008Auth., 24 AD3d 605 [2d Dept 2005].) In deciding whether a carrier has breached its duty to its passenger, it is a confluence of factors that create “[t]he risk reasonably to be perceived [which in turn] defines the duty to be obeyed” (Palsgraf v Long Is.

2001While each of defendant’s actions, standing alone, may have had an innocent explanation, the confluence of factors, including his confirmed identity as the person who fled from the scene of the shooting and his evasive action upon the officers’ arrival, provided reasonable suspicion justifying the stop and brief detention of defendant (see, People v Mendez, 255 AD2d 128 , lv denied 93 NY2d 876 ; People v Paul, 240 AD2d 168 , lv denied 90 NY2d 909 ; People v Gill, 223 AD2d 447 , lv denied 87 NY2d 1019 ).

2001While each of defendant’s actions, standing alone, may have had an innocent explanation, the confluence of factors, including his confirmed identity as the person who fled from the scene of the shooting and his evasive action upon the officers’ arrival, provided reasonable suspicion justifying the stop and brief detention of defendant (see, People v Mendez, 255 AD2d 128 , lv denied 93 NY2d 876 ; People v Paul, 240 AD2d 168 , lv denied 90 NY2d 909 ; People v Gill, 223 AD2d 447 , lv denied 87 NY2d 1019 ).

2001While each of defendant’s actions, standing alone, may have had an innocent explanation, the confluence of factors, including his confirmed identity as the person who fled from the scene of the shooting and his evasive action upon the officers’ arrival, provided reasonable suspicion justifying the stop and brief detention of defendant (see, People v Mendez, 255 AD2d 128 , lv denied 93 NY2d 876 ; People v Paul, 240 AD2d 168 , lv denied 90 NY2d 909 ; People v Gill, 223 AD2d 447 , lv denied 87 NY2d 1019 ).

1985Close reading revéals that those cases are inapposite since, rather than all things being equal, the confluence of factors in each instance, favored trial in the place where the cause of action arose. (2 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 510.17; see also, O’Leary v Hull, 101 AD2d 741 [1st Dept 1984]; Meier v Ford Motor Co., 93 AD2d 729 [1st Dept 1983].) On this record, we conclude that Special Term’s decision to deny the motion was a valid exercise of its discretion.

1975Firstly, since the hearing for which such assignment of counsel is sought has as its purpose an intent to revoke the petitioner’s public assistance, it is not disputed it involves a factual pattern parallel to that in Goldberg v Kelly ( 397 US 254 ).