issuance warning in New York

2013Accordingly, I would reverse the judgment, on the law, and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Rockland County, for a new trial (see Smith v Perfectaire Co., 270 AD2d at 410 ). [Prior Case History: 32 Mise 3d 1230(A), 2011 NY Slip Op 51504(U) .]

2013Accordingly, I would reverse the judgment, on the law, and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Rockland County, for a new trial (see Smith v Perfectaire Co., 270 AD2d at 410 ). [Prior Case History: 32 Mise 3d 1230(A), 2011 NY Slip Op 51504(U) .]

1989Rather, the issuance of the warnings negated any possibility that the defendant felt compelled to submit to the polygraph test or speak to the detectives (see, People v Ross, supra; People v Oates, 104 AD2d 907, 911 ; People v Tarsia, 67 AD2d 210 , affd 50 NY2d 1 ).

1987Rather, the issuance of the warnings negated any possibility that the defendant felt compelled to submit to the polygraph test or speak to the detectives (see, People v Oates, 104 AD2d 907, 911 ; People v Tarsia, 67 AD2d 210 ; affd 50 NY2d 1 ).

1989Rather, the issuance of the warnings negated any possibility that the defendant felt compelled to submit to the polygraph test or speak to the detectives (see, People v Ross, supra; People v Oates, 104 AD2d 907, 911 ; People v Tarsia, 67 AD2d 210 , affd 50 NY2d 1 ).

1987Rather, the issuance of the warnings negated any possibility that the defendant felt compelled to submit to the polygraph test or speak to the detectives (see, People v Oates, 104 AD2d 907, 911 ; People v Tarsia, 67 AD2d 210 ; affd 50 NY2d 1 ).

1989Rather, the issuance of the warnings negated any possibility that the defendant felt compelled to submit to the polygraph test or speak to the detectives (see, People v Ross, supra; People v Oates, 104 AD2d 907, 911 ; People v Tarsia, 67 AD2d 210 , affd 50 NY2d 1 ).

1987Rather, the issuance of the warnings negated any possibility that the defendant felt compelled to submit to the polygraph test or speak to the detectives (see, People v Oates, 104 AD2d 907, 911 ; People v Tarsia, 67 AD2d 210 ; affd 50 NY2d 1 ).

2025Thus, on both dates of the hearing, the mother was left without an advocate ( cf. Matter of Sean P.H. [Rosemarie H.] , 122 AD3d 850, 851 ).

2021Power Auth. , 30 NY3d at 727 ; Turturro v City of New York , 28 NY3d at 477-478).

2016Co., Inc., 10 AD3d 819, 820 [2004]; Matter of DePaoli v Great A & P Tea Co., 257 AD2d 912 , 912 [1999], affd 94 NY2d 377 [2000]).

2016Co., Inc., 10 AD3d 819, 820 [2004]; Matter of DePaoli v Great A & P Tea Co., 257 AD2d 912 , 912 [1999], affd 94 NY2d 377 [2000]).

2009Such issues are raised by evidence that, inter alia, the building defendants relied on the contractor to inspect the hot water system as well as the boiler system, and to report any problems (see Gottlieb v 31 Gramercy Park S. Owners Corp., 276 AD2d 417 [2000] [issues of fact exist as to extent of defendant’s obligation to inspect and/or repair boiler and “accessories”]), and the contractor’s issuance of a violation for lack of a temperature relief valve on another boiler in the complex, tending to show that a check for this valve was part of its inspection process, and that reasonable care in

2005In any event, given the overwhelming evidence of guilt, any error regarding the People’s impeachment of their own witness is harmless (see People v Crimmins, 38 NY2d 407 [1975]; see also People v Fitzpatrick, 40 NY2d 44, 52 [1976]; People v Pellot, 186 AD2d 158 [1992]).

2005In any event, given the overwhelming evidence of guilt, any error regarding the People’s impeachment of their own witness is harmless (see People v Crimmins, 38 NY2d 407 [1975]; see also People v Fitzpatrick, 40 NY2d 44, 52 [1976]; People v Pellot, 186 AD2d 158 [1992]).

2005The defendant neither moved for a mistrial on the ground of improper impeachment nor asked for further curative instructions regarding impeachment at any point in the trial following the issuance of the instruction, and thus failed to preserve the issue for appellate review (see People v Carter, 299 AD2d 418 [2002]).

1996In any event, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion (see, People v Kuey, 83 NY2d 278 ) since the time period between the issuance of the violation of probation report and resentencing was brief (see, People v Roberts, 214 AD2d 592 ; People v Schalk, 198 AD2d 915 ; People v Wilkinson, 197 AD2d 872 ; People v Sanchez, 143 AD2d 377 ; People v Jackson, 106 AD2d 93, 98 ).

1996In any event, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion (see, People v Kuey, 83 NY2d 278 ) since the time period between the issuance of the violation of probation report and resentencing was brief (see, People v Roberts, 214 AD2d 592 ; People v Schalk, 198 AD2d 915 ; People v Wilkinson, 197 AD2d 872 ; People v Sanchez, 143 AD2d 377 ; People v Jackson, 106 AD2d 93, 98 ).

1996In any event, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion (see, People v Kuey, 83 NY2d 278 ) since the time period between the issuance of the violation of probation report and resentencing was brief (see, People v Roberts, 214 AD2d 592 ; People v Schalk, 198 AD2d 915 ; People v Wilkinson, 197 AD2d 872 ; People v Sanchez, 143 AD2d 377 ; People v Jackson, 106 AD2d 93, 98 ).

1996In any event, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion (see, People v Kuey, 83 NY2d 278 ) since the time period between the issuance of the violation of probation report and resentencing was brief (see, People v Roberts, 214 AD2d 592 ; People v Schalk, 198 AD2d 915 ; People v Wilkinson, 197 AD2d 872 ; People v Sanchez, 143 AD2d 377 ; People v Jackson, 106 AD2d 93, 98 ).

1996In any event, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion (see, People v Kuey, 83 NY2d 278 ) since the time period between the issuance of the violation of probation report and resentencing was brief (see, People v Roberts, 214 AD2d 592 ; People v Schalk, 198 AD2d 915 ; People v Wilkinson, 197 AD2d 872 ; People v Sanchez, 143 AD2d 377 ; People v Jackson, 106 AD2d 93, 98 ).

1996In any event, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion (see, People v Kuey, 83 NY2d 278 ) since the time period between the issuance of the violation of probation report and resentencing was brief (see, People v Roberts, 214 AD2d 592 ; People v Schalk, 198 AD2d 915 ; People v Wilkinson, 197 AD2d 872 ; People v Sanchez, 143 AD2d 377 ; People v Jackson, 106 AD2d 93, 98 ).

1996We find that the defendant was afforded meaningful representation of counsel (see, People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 708 ; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146-147 ).

1996We find that the defendant was afforded meaningful representation of counsel (see, People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 708 ; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146-147 ).

1989Rather, the issuance of the warnings negated any possibility that the defendant felt compelled to submit to the polygraph test or speak to the detectives (see, People v Ross, supra; People v Oates, 104 AD2d 907, 911 ; People v Tarsia, 67 AD2d 210 , affd 50 NY2d 1 ).

1988(See, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 16 ; People v Richetti, 302 NY 290, 298 .) Since respondent clearly was not entitled to the waiver which was issued, and in the absence of proof that the Law Examiners acted contrary to their oath, we are constrained to infer that they were defrauded, because no other rational explanation exists for the issuance of the waiver.

1988(See, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 16 ; People v Richetti, 302 NY 290, 298 .) Since respondent clearly was not entitled to the waiver which was issued, and in the absence of proof that the Law Examiners acted contrary to their oath, we are constrained to infer that they were defrauded, because no other rational explanation exists for the issuance of the waiver.

1976Matter of Carroll v. Grumet, 281 App. Div. 35 (1st Dept., 1952), motion for leave to appeal denied 281 App. Div. 863 , motion to dismiss appeal granted, 305 N.Y. 692 ; Rosen v. Teachers' Retirement Board, 282 App. Div. 216 (1st Dept., 1953).