bail hearing in New York

1999In support of his motion, defendant argued, in essence, that once it was brought to County Court’s attention, during his arraignment that a psychiatric examination had been ordered (apparently in the course of an earlier bail hearing, before a different Judge), the court had an obligation to follow the procedures set forth at CPL 730.20 before conducting further proceedings or permitting defendant to enter a guilty plea (see, People v Armlin, 37 NY2d 167, 172 ).

1999In support of his motion, defendant argued, in essence, that once it was brought to County Court’s attention, during his arraignment that a psychiatric examination had been ordered (apparently in the course of an earlier bail hearing, before a different Judge), the court had an obligation to follow the procedures set forth at CPL 730.20 before conducting further proceedings or permitting defendant to enter a guilty plea (see, People v Armlin, 37 NY2d 167, 172 ).

1999Plaintiff’s claim of legal malpractice based on defendants’ representation of him at a bail hearing is precluded as a mat ter of law by his guilty plea (Carmel v Lunney, 70 NY2d 169 ).

1999Plaintiffs claim of legal malpractice based on defendants’ representation of him at a bail hearing is precluded as a mat ter of law by his guilty plea (Carmel v Lunney, 70 NY2d 169 ).

2011A court officer’s testimony describing a statement made by defendant during a bail hearing was properly allowed into evidence under the requisite balancing test (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 424-425 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]).

2011That the class members may have suffered the deprivation of their constitutional right to counsel in varying manners—be it through outright denial of counsel during arraignment or a bail hearing, or nonrepresentation at a critical stage—does not compel a conclusion that individual issues predominate; “it is ‘predominance, not identity or unanimity,’ that is the linchpin of commonality” (City of New York v Maul, 14 NY3d at 514 , quoting Friar v Vanguard Holding Corp., 78 AD2d at 98 ; see Fleming v Barnwell Nursing Home & Health Facilities, 309 AD2d 1132, 1133-1134 [2003]).

2010CPL 170.10 addresses arraignments relative to an information, simplified traffic information, prosecutor's information or misdemeanor complaint, and sets forth the procedures the court must follow in apprising a defendant of his right to counsel and/or assignment of counsel. [6] Indeed, the Supreme Court of the United States has favorably cited to CPL 180.10 in support of its observation that New York is one of the 43 states that "take the first step toward appointing counsel `before, at or just after initial appearance'" ( Rothgery v Gillespie County, 554 US 191 , ___ and n 14, 128 S Ct 2578

2010CPL 170.10 addresses arraignments relative to an information, simplified traffic information, prosecutor's information or misdemeanor complaint, and sets forth the procedures the court must follow in apprising a defendant of his right to counsel and/or assignment of counsel. [6] Indeed, the Supreme Court of the United States has favorably cited to CPL 180.10 in support of its observation that New York is one of the 43 states that "take the first step toward appointing counsel `before, at or just after initial appearance'" ( Rothgery v Gillespie County, 554 US 191 , ___ and n 14, 128 S Ct 2578

2007Moreover, the trial court properly permitted the prosecutor to impeach defendant by way of statements made by her attorney at the bail hearing as it is a reasonable inference that such statements were attributable to defendant, and they significantly contradicted her trial testimony (see People v Gary, 44 AD3d 416 [2007]; People v Kallamni, 14 AD3d 316 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 854 [2005]).

2007Moreover, the trial court properly permitted the prosecutor to impeach defendant by way of statements made by her attorney at the bail hearing as it is a reasonable inference that such statements were attributable to defendant, and they significantly contradicted her trial testimony (see People v Gary, 44 AD3d 416 [2007]; People v Kallamni, 14 AD3d 316 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 854 [2005]).

2007Finally, as the People concede, the crime was committed before the effective date of the legislation providing for imposition of a DNA databank fee (Penal Law § 60.35 [1] [a] [v] [former (1) (e)]) and, as a result, the imposition of that fee should be vacated (see People v Rodriguez, 36 AD3d 438 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 990 [2007]).

2007Moreover, the trial court properly permitted the prosecutor to impeach defendant by way of statements made by her attorney at the bail hearing as it is a reasonable inference that such statements were attributable to defendant, and they significantly contradicted her trial testimony (see People v Gary, 44 AD3d 416 [2007]; People v Kallamni, 14 AD3d 316 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 854 [2005]).

2004In our view, neither of these actions was indicative of bias on the part of County Court and, therefore, recusal was not warranted (see People v Maxam, supra at 793; People v Darling, 276 AD2d 922 , 924 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 733 [2001]).

1989Since three months elapsed from the date of admonishment at the bail hearing until the time of the trial, in our view the failure of defendant to keep himself on notice for that period of time should not be considered a waiver of such a fundamental right (see, People v Weathers, 94 AD2d 964 ; People v Fowler, 83 AD2d 788 ).

1989Since three months elapsed from the date of admonishment at the bail hearing until the time of the trial, in our view the failure of defendant to keep himself on notice for that period of time should not be considered a waiver of such a fundamental right (see, People v Weathers, 94 AD2d 964 ; People v Fowler, 83 AD2d 788 ).

1987(Matter of Sardino v State Commn. on Judicial Con duct, 58 NY2d 286, 289 .) We find that the evidence presented at the hearing supported a grant of bail and, accordingly, Criminal Term’s denial of such bail was arbitrary and an abuse of discretion.

1982(See Katz, Juveniles Committed to Penal Institutions — Do They Have the Right to a Jury Trial?, 13 J Fam L 675; Inmates of Boys’ Training School v Affleck, 346 F Supp 1354, 1364 .) For instance, while no provisions are made for a bail hearing, juvenile delinquents may not be detained more than 72 hours before a petition is filed without a court hearing on the appropriateness of detention.

1981Lobell v McDonnell, 296 NY 109 ), and since all concerned are seeking to avoid unnecessary deprivations of liberty, the courts should declare finally, firmly, forcefully and consistently that it is the public policy of this State to encourage the work of the CJA in the ROR procedures; to urge defendants to provide full and honest information to CJA interviewers for ultimate use by the court and counsel; and to assure defendants that their answers will not be admissible against them in court on the issue of guilt and that only false or inconsistent statements may be employed by the People at tr

1981Accordingly, since the basic purpose of a bail hearing is to insure a defendant’s appearance (CPL 510.30, subd 2, par [a]; Reynolds v United States, 80 S Ct 30 , 32; People ex rel.