legitimate claim in New York

2017He [or she] must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it” (Board of Regents of State Colleges v Roth, 408 US 564, 577 [1972]).

2003Protectable property interests arise when there is a legitimate claim of entitlement pursuant to state or local law (see Town of Orangetown v Magee, supra, at 52; Board of Regents of State Colls. v Roth, 408 US 564, 577 [1972]; Crowley v Courville, 76 F3d 47 [1996]; RRI Realty Corp. v Incorporated Vil. of Southampton, 870 F2d 911, 917-918 [1989], cert denied 493 US 893 [1989]; Yale Auto Parts, Inc. v Johnson, 758 F2d 54, 58 [1985]).

2021First, petitioners "must establish a cognizable property interest, meaning a vested property interest, or more than a mere expectation or hope to [obtain approval of their application]; they must show that pursuant to State or local law, they had a legitimate claim of entitlement to [obtain such approval]" ( Schlossin , 48 AD3d at 1120 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Bower Assoc. , 2 NY3d at 627 ; Acquest Wehrle, LLC v Town of Amherst , 129 AD3d 1644, 1647 [4th Dept 2015], appeal dismissed 26 NY3d 1020 [2015]).

2015Under the first prong, “a legitimate claim of entitlement to a permit can exist only where there is either a ‘certainty or a very strong likelihood’ that an application for approval would have been granted” (Bower Assoc., 2 NY3d at 628 ).

2026For example, a prosecutor may not provide "an inaccurate and misleading answer to the grand jury's legitimate inquiry" ( People v Hill , 5 NY3d 772, 773 [2005]), nor may the prosecutor accept an indictment that they know to be based on false, misleading, or legally insufficient evidence ( see Pelchat , 62 NY2d at 107 ).

2026For example, a prosecutor may not provide "an inaccurate and misleading answer to the grand jury's legitimate inquiry" ( People v Hill , 5 NY3d 772, 773 [2005]), nor may the prosecutor accept an indictment that they know to be based on false, misleading, or legally insufficient evidence ( see Pelchat , 62 NY2d at 107).

2013Viewing the trial overall, counsel effectively attacked the witnesses’ credibility and advanced a legitimate defense strategy, thereby providing meaningful representation (see People v Alsaifullah, 96 AD3d 1103, 1105 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 994 [2012]; People v Bruno, 63 AD3d 1297, 1298-1299 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 858 [2009]).

2013Viewing the trial overall, counsel effectively attacked the witnesses’ credibility and advanced a legitimate defense strategy, thereby providing meaningful representation (see People v Alsaifullah, 96 AD3d 1103, 1105 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 994 [2012]; People v Bruno, 63 AD3d 1297, 1298-1299 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 858 [2009]).

2010First addressing petitioner’s claim as it relates to the revocation of its temporary driveway permit, petitioner was required to establish “ ‘more than a mere expectation or hope to retain the permit and continue [its] improvements; [petitioner] must show that pursuant to [s]tate or local law, [it] had a legitimate claim of entitlement to continue construction’ ” (Bower Assoc. v Town of Pleasant Val., 2 NY3d at 627, quoting Town of Orangetown v Magee, 88 NY2d at 52 ).

2004First, claimants must establish a cognizable property interest, meaning a vested property interest, or “more than a mere expectation or hope to retain the permit and continue their improvements; they must show that pursuant to State or local law, they had a legitimate claim of entitlement to continue construction” (Magee, 88 NY2d at 52 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2021First, petitioners "must establish a cognizable property interest, meaning a vested property interest, or more than a mere expectation or hope to [obtain approval of their application]; they must show that pursuant to State or local law, they had a legitimate claim of entitlement to [obtain such approval]" ( Schlossin , 48 AD3d at 1120 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Bower Assoc. , 2 NY3d at 627 ; Acquest Wehrle, LLC v Town of Amherst , 129 AD3d 1644, 1647 [4th Dept 2015], appeal dismissed 26 NY3d 1020 [2015]).

2015Second, [a plaintiff] must show that the governmental action was wholly without legal justification” (Bower Assoc. v Town of Pleasant Val., 2 NY3d 617, 627 [2004]; see Schlossin v Town of Marilla, 48 AD3d 1118, 1120 [2008]).

2021Dept. of Health , 90 NY2d 89, 98 [1997], cert denied 523 US 1074 [1998], quoting Board of Regents of State Colleges v Roth , 408 US 564, 577 [1972]).

2010Dept. of Health, 90 NY2d 89, 98 [1997], cert denied 523 US 1074 [1998].) Here, the departmental superintendent of the Banking Department is authorized by law to make rules which, in his judgment, are necessary to enforce article 12-E (Banking Law § 599-o), and in any event, the issuance of a certificate of relief never guaranteed success in obtaining a license.

2013Viewing the trial overall, counsel effectively attacked the witnesses’ credibility and advanced a legitimate defense strategy, thereby providing meaningful representation (see People v Alsaifullah, 96 AD3d 1103, 1105 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 994 [2012]; People v Bruno, 63 AD3d 1297, 1298-1299 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 858 [2009]).

2013Viewing the trial overall, counsel effectively attacked the witnesses’ credibility and advanced a legitimate defense strategy, thereby providing meaningful representation (see People v Alsaifullah, 96 AD3d 1103, 1105 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 994 [2012]; People v Bruno, 63 AD3d 1297, 1298-1299 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 858 [2009]).

2012Moreover, the narrow exception to the preservation requirement is not applicable here because, even assuming that defendant’s remarks raised a legitimate claim of self-defense, the court satisfied its duty of further inquiry (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Simpson, 19 AD3d at 945 ; People v Moore, 270 AD2d 715, 716 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 800 [2000]).

2012Moreover, the narrow exception to the preservation requirement is not applicable here because, even assuming that defendant’s remarks raised a legitimate claim of self-defense, the court satisfied its duty of further inquiry (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Simpson, 19 AD3d at 945 ; People v Moore, 270 AD2d 715, 716 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 800 [2000]).

2012Moreover, the narrow exception to the preservation requirement is not applicable here because, even assuming that defendant’s remarks raised a legitimate claim of self-defense, the court satisfied its duty of further inquiry (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Simpson, 19 AD3d at 945 ; People v Moore, 270 AD2d 715, 716 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 800 [2000]).

2012Moreover, the narrow exception to the preservation requirement is not applicable here because, even assuming that defendant’s remarks raised a legitimate claim of self-defense, the court satisfied its duty of further inquiry (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Simpson, 19 AD3d at 945 ; People v Moore, 270 AD2d 715, 716 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 800 [2000]).

1990However, such expectation does not amount to a legitimate claim of entitlement to the lease (see, Board of Regents v Roth, 408 US 564, 577 ; see also, Matter of Allen v Eberling, 24 AD2d 594 ).

1990However, such expectation does not amount to a legitimate claim of entitlement to the lease (see, Board of Regents v Roth, 408 US 564, 577 ; see also, Matter of Allen v Eberling, 24 AD2d 594 .)” Respondents here, all merchants in a public market operating businesses for profit, can point to no policy, law, or regulation protecting commercial tenancies in the private or public sector.

2025NY v Ambach , 96 AD2d 667 [3d Dept 1983]): "To have a property interest protected by the Constitution, one must have more than a unilateral expectation; he must have a legitimate claim of entitlement in something.

2025NY v Ambach , 96 AD2d 667 [3d Dept 1983]): "To have a property interest protected by the Constitution, one must have more than a unilateral expectation; he must have a legitimate claim of entitlement in something.

2016Finally, defendant's claim that counsel was ineffective because he did not object to portions of the complainant's testimony on the ground that it constituted hearsay is without merit, as counsel pursued a legitimate defense strategy ( see People v Benevento , 91 NY2d at 712-713 ; People v Blair , 121 AD3d 1570 , 1570-1571 [2014]).

2006Also, a review of the record as a whole reflects that defendant received meaningful assistance of counsel, who pursued numerous motions and a legitimate defense strategy and effectively raised objections and cross-examined the complainant and other witnesses (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712-713 [1998]; People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 708 [1988]).

2026For example, a prosecutor may not provide "an inaccurate and misleading answer to the grand jury's legitimate inquiry" ( People v Hill , 5 NY3d 772, 773 [2005]), nor may the prosecutor accept an indictment that they know to be based on false, misleading, or legally insufficient evidence ( see Pelchat , 62 NY2d at 107 ).

2026For example, a prosecutor may not provide "an inaccurate and misleading answer to the grand jury's legitimate inquiry" ( People v Hill , 5 NY3d 772, 773 [2005]), nor may the prosecutor accept an indictment that they know to be based on false, misleading, or legally insufficient evidence ( see Pelchat , 62 NY2d at 107).

2026Of particular relevance here, "[t]he exceptional remedy of dismissal" for defective grand jury proceedings is available in "rare cases" of prosecutorial misconduct upon a showing that, in the absence of the complained-of actions of the prosecutor, the grand jury might have decided not to indict defendant ( Huston , 88 NY2d at 409-410 ).

2004We conclude that the prosecutor’s inaccurate and misleading answer to the grand jury’s legitimate inquiry impeded the grand jury’s investigation, thereby substantially undermining the integrity of the proceeding and, at a minimum, potentially prejudicing defendant (see id. at 409-410 ; People v Caracciola, 78 NY2d 1021, 1022 [1991]).

2012As the District Court noted, since one of the purposes of the assignment was to enforce a legitimate claim, the transaction cannot be considered champertous (see also SB Schwartz & Co., Inc. v Levine, 82 AD3d 742 [2011]).

2011A corporation that takes an assignment of a claim does not violate Judiciary Law § 489 (1) if the “primary purpose of the transaction is to enforce a legitimate claim, or if the party obtaining the claim or debt does so as part of a larger transaction and the intent to commence litigation is incidental to that larger transaction” (SB Schwartz & Co., Inc. v Levine, 82 AD3d 742, 743 [2011]; see Trust for Certificate Holders of Merrill Lynch Mtge.

2003Protectable property interests arise when there is a legitimate claim of entitlement pursuant to state or local law (see Town of Orangetown v Magee, supra, at 52; Board of Regents of State Colls. v Roth, 408 US 564, 577 [1972]; Crowley v Courville, 76 F3d 47 [1996]; RRI Realty Corp. v Incorporated Vil. of Southampton, 870 F2d 911, 917-918 [1989], cert denied 493 US 893 [1989]; Yale Auto Parts, Inc. v Johnson, 758 F2d 54, 58 [1985]).

2000Plaintiff does not have “ ‘a legitimate claim of entitlement’ ” (Crowley v Courville, supra, at 52) to the continuation of the R-2 designation of the parcel, a permit to build duplex units, or the reclassification of the parcel.

1990(Matter of Economico v Village of Pelham, 50 NY2d 120 [1980].) Here, there can be no legitimate claim of entitlement.

1986The essence of constitutional due process, we have held, "is fundamental fairness” (Economico v Village of Pelham, supra, at p 125), and it may not be assumed that the Legislature ignored this basic concept in defining the property interest in circumstances such as Brig-gins (see, United States v Jin Fuey Moy, 241 US 394, 401 ; Dollar Co. v Canadian Car & Foundry Co., 220 NY 270, 275-278 ; see generally, McKinney’s Statutes §§ 143, 146, 150, to the effect that a statutory construction which is unreasonable, or works a hardship, or is unconstitutional should be avoided).

2026It is only after that determination is made that the "federal constitutional law determines whether that interest rises to the level of a legitimate claim of entitlement protected by the Due Process Clause" ( Town of Castle Rock v Gonzalez , 545 US 748, 757 [2005] [internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted]).