reversal error in New York

1992A prosecutor’s delay in turning over Rosario material will result in a reversal only where the defense is substantially prejudiced (People v Martinez, 71 NY2d 937 ; People v Ranghelle, 69 NY2d 56 ; see also, People v Young, 79 NY2d 365 ).

1990(People v Martinez, 71 NY2d 937 ; People v Ranghelle, 69 NY2d 56 .) No such prejudice occurred here.

1992A prosecutor’s delay in turning over Rosario material will result in a reversal only where the defense is substantially prejudiced (People v Martinez, 71 NY2d 937 ; People v Ranghelle, 69 NY2d 56 ; see also, People v Young, 79 NY2d 365 ).

1990(People v Martinez, 71 NY2d 937 ; People v Ranghelle, 69 NY2d 56 .) No such prejudice occurred here.

1990(CPL 240.45 [1] [a]; People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286 , cert denied 368 US 866 .) However, a prosecutor’s delay in turning over Rosario material will result in a reversal only where the defense is substantially prejudiced.

1990(CPL 240.45 [1] [a]; People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286 , cert denied 368 US 866 .) However, a prosecutor’s delay in turning over Rosario material will result in a reversal only where the defense is substantially prejudiced.

1985Although claimant’s accident occurred in 1973 rather than 1977, the facts upon which she seeks to base her claim that the New York State Thruway Authority was negligent are in all other aspects identical to those described in Muller v State of New York ( 108 AD2d 181 ).

1980Under farce and mockery analysis, erroneous trial strategy is the basis for reversal on ineffective assistance grounds only where the strategy is so devoid of reason or shows such a lack of familiarity with basic legal principles so as to be the sole or at least a contributing factor in the conclusion that the trial was a mockery of justice. 21 The reversal standard has been cast in terms of whether counsel’s actions withdrew a crucial defense from the case, 22 or whether there has been a deliberate abdication, by conscious conduct, of the lawyer’s ethical duty to fairly represent his client.

1980Under farce and mockery analysis, erroneous trial strategy is the basis for reversal on ineffective assistance grounds only where the strategy is so devoid of reason or shows such a lack of familiarity with basic legal principles so as to be the sole or at least a contributing factor in the conclusion that the trial was a mockery of justice. 21 The reversal standard has been cast in terms of whether counsel’s actions withdrew a crucial defense from the case, 22 or whether there has been a deliberate abdication, by conscious conduct, of the lawyer’s ethical duty to fairly represent his client.

1963Co. ( 151 N. Y. 107 , supra) by the Battalla decision (10 N Y 2d 237, supra) “in no way affects the instant case for it merely makes universal that which has always applied to foreign substance cases This leads us to the crux of defendant’s argument.

1942(People v. Redmond, 225 N. Y. 206 ; People v. Radcliffe, 231 N. Y. 634 ; People v. Bergman, 252 N. Y. 346; People v. Kuland ( 266 N. Y. 1 .) Since the enactment of section 543-a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a statement in an order of reversal of the *70 Appellate Division that the reversal is for error of law creates a presumption “ that the Appellate Division reviewed the facts and was satisfied with the conviction in that respect.” We think that a similar statement by the County Court creates the same presumption.

1942(People v. Redmond, 225 N. Y. 206 ; People v. Radcliffe, 231 N. Y. 634 ; People v. Bergman, 252 N. Y. 346; People v. Kuland ( 266 N. Y. 1 .) Since the enactment of section 543-a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a statement in an order of reversal of the *70 Appellate Division that the reversal is for error of law creates a presumption “ that the Appellate Division reviewed the facts and was satisfied with the conviction in that respect.” We think that a similar statement by the County Court creates the same presumption.

1942(People v. Redmond, 225 N. Y. 206 ; People v. Radcliffe, 231 N. Y. 634 ; People v. Bergman, 252 N. Y. 346; People v. Kuland ( 266 N. Y. 1 .) Since the enactment of section 543-a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a statement in an order of reversal of the *70 Appellate Division that the reversal is for error of law creates a presumption “ that the Appellate Division reviewed the facts and was satisfied with the conviction in that respect.” We think that a similar statement by the County Court creates the same presumption.

1942(People v. Redmond, 225 N. Y. 206 ; People v. Radcliffe, 231 N. Y. 634 ; People v. Bergman, 252 N. Y. 346; People v. Kuland ( 266 N. Y. 1 .) Since the enactment of section 543-a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a statement in an order of reversal of the *70 Appellate Division that the reversal is for error of law creates a presumption “ that the Appellate Division reviewed the facts and was satisfied with the conviction in that respect.” We think that a similar statement by the County Court creates the same presumption.

1940In People v. Marino ( 271 N. Y. 317 ) there was an indictment for receiving stolen goods.

1939(Laumeier v. Laumeier, 237 N. Y. 357 ; De Brauwere v. De Brauwere, 203 id. 460 ; Michaels v. Flach, 197 App. Div. 478 ; Haskell v. Haskell, 201 id. 414.) This application, in effect, essays a reversal of that doctrine.

1939(Laumeier v. Laumeier, 237 N. Y. 357 ; De Brauwere v. De Brauwere, 203 id. 460 ; Michaels v. Flach, 197 App. Div. 478 ; Haskell v. Haskell, 201 id. 414.) This application, in effect, essays a reversal of that doctrine.

1939(Laumeier v. Laumeier, 237 N. Y. 357 ; De Brauwere v. De Brauwere, 203 id. 460 ; Michaels v. Flach, 197 App. Div. 478 ; Haskell v. Haskell, 201 id. 414.) This application, in effect, essays a reversal of that doctrine.

1920(Polinsky v. People, 73 N. Y. 65 ; People v. Budd, 117 id. 1; affd., 143 U. S. 517 .) When the court charged the jury, it was careful to instruct them that “ the question to be decided by you is a very simple one, and it is a single question. * * * Did this defendant make a business of soliciting work for a lawyer? ” Again, the court said: “ The charge against the defendant is that he made a business of doing that, and unless you find from the proof that he did make a business of soliciting business for a lawyer or for lawyers, he cannot be convicted under this indictment.” The learned court t

1920(Polinsky v. People, 73 N. Y. 65 ; People v. Budd, 117 id. 1; affd., 143 U. S. 517 .) When the court charged the jury, it was careful to instruct them that “ the question to be decided by you is a very simple one, and it is a single question. * * * Did this defendant make a business of soliciting work for a lawyer? ” Again, the court said: “ The charge against the defendant is that he made a business of doing that, and unless you find from the proof that he did make a business of soliciting business for a lawyer or for lawyers, he cannot be convicted under this indictment.” The learned court t

1905Co., 64 N. Y. 236 .) On an appeal from a judgment alone the Appellate Division is limited to an examination of the exceptions or errors of law exactly to the same extent as is this court; but on a motion for a new trial on the judge’s minutes or on a case it is not necessary to authorize a reversal that an exception should appear in the record.

1887In Inglehart v. Thousand Island Hotel Co., 109 N. Y. 454, the general term reversed the judgnfent, but did not declare in its order that the reversal was upon the facts; and it was held that the court of appeals must assume that the reversal was for error In law; §§ 1337, 1338, Code Civ.

1887Kane v. Cortesy, 100 N. Y. 132 .

1882(Bort v. Smith, 5 Barb., 283 .) We should affirm the judgment of the County Court of Oneida, which affirms the judgment of the Justices’ Court.

1882The case does not fall within Peyser v. Mayor ( 70 N. Y., 502 ; S. C., 5 Weekly Digest, 127.) In that case Folger, J., says: “ To warrant an action to recover back money paid by coercion of law upon a judgment or tax levied, or assessment levied, it must appear that the judgment or proceedings were prima faoie regular, so as not themselves to furnish evidence of their own invalidity, and -it must also appear that the rights and positions of the parties have been ohanged'smce the payment was made, as by a reversal for error, or a setting aside for irregularity or illegality.” (See, also, Lott v

1877(Marsh v. City of Brooklyn, 59 N. Y., 280 ; Washburn v. Burnham, 63 id., 132.) To warrant an action to recover back money paid by coercion of law upon a judgment, or tax levied, or assessment laid, it must appear that the judgment or proceedings were prima facie regular, so as not, themselves, to furnish evidence of them own invalidity; and it must also appear that the rights and positions of the parties have been changed since the *503 payment was made, as by a reversal for error or a setting aside for irregularity or illegality.