neutral rule in New York

2019"So strong is the presumption of concurrency [of federal and state court jurisdiction] that it is defeated only in two narrowly defined circumstances: first, when Congress expressly ousts state courts of jurisdiction and second, [w]hen a state court refuses jurisdiction because of a neutral state rule regarding the administration of the courts" ( Haywood , 556 US at 735 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]).

2019"So strong is the presumption of concurrency [of federal and state court jurisdiction] that it is defeated only in two narrowly defined circumstances: first, when Congress expressly ousts state courts of jurisdiction and second, [w]hen a state court refuses jurisdiction because of a neutral state rule regarding the administration of the courts" ( Haywood , 556 US at 735 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]).

2025Therefore, plaintiffs cannot support their breach of fiduciary duty claim based on their allegations that they were singled out for mistreatment or retaliated against when defendant demanded that plaintiffs remove their Ring camera, or when defendant investigated a leak purportedly originating in plaintiffs' unit ( see Pomerance v McGrath , 124 AD3d 481, 483 [1st Dept 2015]).

2025Therefore, plaintiffs cannot support their breach of fiduciary duty claim based on their allegations that they were singled out for mistreatment or retaliated against when defendant demanded that plaintiffs remove their Ring camera, or when defendant investigated a leak purportedly originating in plaintiffs' unit ( see Pomerance v McGrath , 124 AD3d 481, 483 [1st Dept 2015]).

2024The fact that a government actor was on notice of a disparate impact and did nothing to ameliorate it can be a factor ( see Davis v City of New York , 959 F Supp 2d 324, 362-363 [SD NY 2013]).

2024The fact that a government actor was on notice of a disparate impact and did nothing to ameliorate it can be a factor ( see Davis v City of New York , 959 F Supp 2d 324, 362-363 [SD NY 2013]).

2024"The foreseeability of a segregative effect, or '[a]dherence to a particular policy or practice, 'with full knowledge of the predictable effects of such adherence upon racial imbalance,' is a factor that may be taken into account in determining whether acts were undertaken with segregative intent" ( United States v Yonkers Bd. of Educ. , 837 F2d 1181, 1227 [1987], cert denied 486 US 1055 [1988] quoting Columbus Bd. of Educ. v Penick , 443 US 449, 465 [1979]; see also Feeney , 442 US at 279 n 25 ["This is not to say that the inevitability or foreseeability of consequences of a neutral rule has

2024"The foreseeability of a segregative effect, or '[a]dherence to a particular policy or practice, 'with full knowledge of the predictable effects of such adherence upon racial imbalance,' is a factor that may be taken into account in determining whether acts were undertaken with segregative intent" ( United States v Yonkers Bd. of Educ. , 837 F2d 1181, 1227 [1987], cert denied 486 US 1055 [1988] quoting Columbus Bd. of Educ. v Penick , 443 US 449, 465 [1979]; see also Feeney , 442 US at 279 n 25 ["This is not to say that the inevitability or foreseeability of consequences of a neutral rule has

2024"The foreseeability of a segregative effect, or '[a]dherence to a particular policy or practice, 'with full knowledge of the predictable effects of such adherence upon racial imbalance,' is a factor that may be taken into account in determining whether acts were undertaken with segregative intent" ( United States v Yonkers Bd. of Educ. , 837 F2d 1181, 1227 [1987], cert denied 486 US 1055 [1988] quoting Columbus Bd. of Educ. v Penick , 443 US 449, 465 [1979]; see also Feeney , 442 US at 279 n 25 ["This is not to say that the inevitability or foreseeability of consequences of a neutral rule has

2024"The foreseeability of a segregative effect, or '[a]dherence to a particular policy or practice, 'with full knowledge of the predictable effects of such adherence upon racial imbalance,' is a factor that may be taken into account in determining whether acts were undertaken with segregative intent" ( United States v Yonkers Bd. of Educ. , 837 F2d 1181, 1227 [1987], cert denied 486 US 1055 [1988] quoting Columbus Bd. of Educ. v Penick , 443 US 449, 465 [1979]; see also Feeney , 442 US at 279 n 25 ["This is not to say that the inevitability or foreseeability of consequences of a neutral rule has

2009Rather, we conclude that the court properly gave a neutral instruction to the jury concerning that witness, i.e., that it was not to draw any inference from her failure to testify (see People v Tatro, 53 AD3d 781, 786-787 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 835 [2008]; see generally People v Thomas, 51 NY2d 466, 472-473 [1980]).

2008As a final matter, inasmuch as Wilson was an unavailable witness, we find no fault with Supreme Court’s refusal to provide a missing witness charge (see People v Savinon, 100 NY2d 192, 198-199 [2003]; People v McBean, 32 AD3d 549 , 552 n 2 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 927 [2006]; People v Davis, 18 AD3d 1016, 1019 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 805 [2005]) and are of the view that the court correctly gave a neutral instruction regarding Wilson’s unavailability as a witness in order to prevent the jury from speculating to the detriment of either the People or defendant (see People v Adams, 53 NY2d at 248

2026Because the process for selecting a Grandmaster with a vote of approval by the membership and the trustees is expressly set forth in article 13 of CBA's bylaws, no application or interpretation of religious principles is required ( cf. Matter of Ming Tung v China Buddhist Assn. , 124 AD3d 13, 20 [1st Dept 2014], affd 26 NY3d 1152 [2016], cert denied 580 US 1049 [2017]).

2026Because the process for selecting a Grandmaster with a vote of approval by the membership and the trustees is expressly set forth in article 13 of CBA's bylaws, no application or interpretation of religious principles is required ( cf. Matter of Ming Tung v China Buddhist Assn. , 124 AD3d 13, 20 [1st Dept 2014], affd 26 NY3d 1152 [2016], cert denied 580 US 1049 [2017]).

2009Rather, we conclude that the court properly gave a neutral instruction to the jury concerning that witness, i.e., that it was not to draw any inference from her failure to testify (see People v Tatro, 53 AD3d 781, 786-787 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 835 [2008]; see generally People v Thomas, 51 NY2d 466, 472-473 [1980]).

2008As a final matter, inasmuch as Wilson was an unavailable witness, we find no fault with Supreme Court’s refusal to provide a missing witness charge (see People v Savinon, 100 NY2d 192, 198-199 [2003]; People v McBean, 32 AD3d 549 , 552 n 2 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 927 [2006]; People v Davis, 18 AD3d 1016, 1019 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 805 [2005]) and are of the view that the court correctly gave a neutral instruction regarding Wilson’s unavailability as a witness in order to prevent the jury from speculating to the detriment of either the People or defendant (see People v Adams, 53 NY2d at 248

2008As a final matter, inasmuch as Wilson was an unavailable witness, we find no fault with Supreme Court’s refusal to provide a missing witness charge (see People v Savinon, 100 NY2d 192, 198-199 [2003]; People v McBean, 32 AD3d 549 , 552 n 2 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 927 [2006]; People v Davis, 18 AD3d 1016, 1019 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 805 [2005]) and are of the view that the court correctly gave a neutral instruction regarding Wilson’s unavailability as a witness in order to prevent the jury from speculating to the detriment of either the People or defendant (see People v Adams, 53 NY2d at 248

2005State courts cannot deny a federal right in the absence of a “valid excuse,” i.e., a neutral state rule regarding court administration which is not inconsistent with or in violation of federal law (see Howlett v Rose, supra at 369-370).