eight factors in New York

2016Nevertheless, when a private employer or public agency relies on the unreasonable risk exception of Correction Law § 752 in determining whether to grant employment or license to an ex-offender, it must also consider and apply the eight factors contained in Correction Law § 753 (1) (see Matter of Bonacorsa v Van Lindt, 71 NY2d 605, 613 [1988]).

1999Nonetheless, the certificate does not establish a prima facie entitlement to the license or employment, but only establishes, if not rebutted, that the applicant has been rehabilitated — just one of the eight factors that the Board must consider in determining whether an exception applies (Matter of Bonacorsa v Van Lindt, supra, 71 NY2d, at 614 ; see, Correction Law § 753 [1] [g]).

2016It is well established that a “certificate [of relief] does not establish a prima facie entitlement to . . . employment, but only establishes, if not rebutted, that the applicant has been rehabilitated—just one of the eight factors [to be considered under Correction Law § 753]” (Matter of Arrocha v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 93 NY2d 361, 365 [1999]).

2016It is well established that a “certificate [of relief] does not establish a prima facie entitlement to . . . employment, but only establishes, if not rebutted, that the applicant has been rehabilitated—just one of the eight factors [to be considered under Correction Law § 753]” (Matter of Arrocha v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 93 NY2d 361, 365 [1999]).

2020The DOE was "not required" to "state with specificity its detailed analysis with respect to each of the eight factors in its denial letter" or to "point to any contemporaneously created record" to show that it considered all eight factors ( Matter of Acosta v New York City Dept. of Educ. , 16 NY3d 309, 318-319 [2011]).

2015Moreover, the DOE is not obliged “to point to any contemporaneously created record that demonstrates that it considered each of the eight factors in reviewing petitioner’s application” (Acosta, 16 NY3d at 319 ).

2020Nor has petitioner adduced evidence showing that the DOE failed to consider the information he provided in support of his application, which were specifically referenced in the letter or already a part of the entire file that was reviewed ( see Matter of Dempsey v New York City Dept. of Educ. , 25 NY3d 291, 300 [2015]).

2018"Because Family Court did not articulate its consideration of each of the factors relevant to the . . . petition . . . and we are unable to glean the necessary information from the record, the court's [implicit] finding that New York was an inconvenient forum to resolve the [custody] petition is not supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record" ( Matter of Frank MM. v Lorain NN. , 103 AD3d 951, 954 [3d Dept 2013]).

1997(See, Estee Lauder, Inc. v The Gap, 108 F3d 1503 [2d Cir 1997].) No one of the Polaroid factors is dispositive, and the list is not exhaustive; “the analysis of the factors is ‘not a mechanical process.’ ” (Arrow Fastener Co. v Stanley Works, 59 F3d 384, 391 [2d Cir 1995]; see, Gruner + Jahr USA Publ. v Meredith Corp., 991 F2d 1072,1077 [2d Cir 1993].) A trial court’s finding as to each factor is one of fact, subject to review for a clearly erroneous standard. 1.

1989Thus the licensing agency or employer must consider the eight factors listed in Correction Law § 753 (1) (a)-(h) to determine whether, in fact, the "direct relationship” is sufficiently attenuated to warrant issuance of the license (see, Matter of Marra v City of White Plains, 96 AD2d 17, 23 [2d Dept 1983]; 1985 Opns Atty Gen 14).