articulated principle in New York

2022However, in Mastroianni, where this Court articulated that rule, the underlying events occurred in 1985, prior to the enactment of the DVIA (see 91 NY2d at 201-203 ), and the Court did not discuss the DVIA in that case.

2017Under these circumstances, the court properly dismissed the guardianship petitions without a hearing (see Matter of Ender M.Z.-P. v Administration for Children’s Servs., 128 AD3d 713, 714 [2015]; Matter of Joseph W. [Monica W.J, 95 AD3d 1347 , 1348 [2012]). *1145 The respondent mother’s remaining contention is without merit.

2016For instance, in Matter of Leatham v Thurston & Braidich ( 264 App Div 449 [3d Dept 1942], aff'd 289 NY 804 [1943]), the plaintiff’s entry into work was blocked by a truck loading at the loading platform.

2016For instance, in Matter of Leatham v Thurston & Braidich ( 264 App Div 449 [3d Dept 1942], aff'd 289 NY 804 [1943]), the plaintiff’s entry into work was blocked by a truck loading at the loading platform.

2000Co. ( 40 NY2d 675 ) this Court articulated the rule for determining whether a loss is the result of an accident or an intentional act as those terms are commonly used in insurance policies.

2000The term “accident” is broadly defined in our jurisprudence, utilizing an average person standard (see, id., at 676 ).

2000(People v McNamara, supra, at 633 .) Pointing to two extremes, the Court suggested that, while the interior of a vehicle would not qualify as a “public place” when the car is situated on a deserted street, the lewdness statute could very well apply when the car is “parked at a busy downtown shopping area.” (Supra, at 633.) Recognizing that “a wide variety of locales” could fit between these two extremes, the Court articulated a test for determining the extent to which sexual conduct inside a vehicle would constitute “public” lewdness.

2000(Supra, at 633.) Specifically, the Court held “that the interior of a parked vehicle is a ‘public place’ for purposes of [Penal Law § 245.00 (a)] where the objective circumstances establish that lewd acts committed there can, and likely would, be seen by the casual passerby, whose sensibilities the statute seeks to protect.” (People v McNamara, supra, at 633-634 .) Finding that none of the informations involved in McNamara contained allegations that the vehicles were on streets “where people resided or otherwise might encounter it,” the Court concluded that it was proper to dismiss them.

1999Although Taranovich specifically addressed a defendant’s right to a speedy trial in a Sixth Amendment context, we have previously acknowledged that the “due process right to prompt prosecution must be tested on a balancing analysis” (People v Staley, supra, at 792, citing People v Taranovich, 37 NY2d 442, 445-447 , supra).

1992His failure of recollection at sentencing was not a clearly articulated challenge to the allegation that he had been previously convicted of the prior felony and, since uncontradicted allegations in a predicate felony statement are deemed true, defendant’s claim of error on appeal has not been preserved (CPL 400.21 [3]; People v Bell, 173 AD2d 218, 219 , lv denied 78 NY2d 962 ).

1987In Courteen Seed Co. v Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corp. ( 245 NY 377, 381 [1927]) the court articulated the principle that "negligent words are not actionable unless they are uttered directly * * * to one to whom the speaker is bound by some relation of duty, arising out of public calling, contract or otherwise, to act with care if he acts at all.” More recently, in Pressler v Dow Jones & Co. ( 88 AD2d 928 [2d Dept 1982]), the court reversed a refusal to dismiss an action for damages based on a negligent misstatement, since "no special relationship existed between the parties”.

1982In People v Stanfield (supra), the court articulated a rule to the effect that where the result and the underlying conduct of two crimes are the same, the only difference being the mental element, the lesser of the two crimes is to be considered a “lesser included” of the greater.

1967But a valid waiver will not be presumed simply from the silence of the accused after -warnings are given or simply from the fact that a confession was in fact eventually obtained.” In discussing the situation of successive police interrogations in case No. 761, Westover v. United States, the court said (in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 496 , supra): “There is no evidence of any warning given prior to the FBI interrogation nor is there any evidence of an articulated waiver of rights after the FBI commenced their interrogation.