person charged violation in New York

1930In City of Buffalo v. Preston ([1903] 81 App. Div. 480 ) the city instituted a civil action in the Municipal Court to recover a fine for a violation of certain city ordinances making persons keeping houses of ill fame guilty of disorderly conduct.

1923(City of Buffalo v. Preston, 81 App. Div. 480 .) The city council has the power to enact this ordinance.

2014The statute sets forth five mandatory identification elements which may not be omitted from a parking summons if it is to survive a jurisdictional challenge and avoid dismissal (Matter of Wheels, Inc. v Parking Violations Bur. of Dept. of Transp. of City of N.Y., 80 NY2d 1014 [1992]; Matter of Ryder Truck Rental v Parking Violations Bur. of Transp.

2009The proceedings of August 16 and September 13, 2006 did not provide defendant with a meaningful opportunity to dispute the alleged violation of probation based on his August 2004 conviction (see People v Oskroba, 305 NY 113, 117 [1953]; People v Almonte, 50 AD3d 696 [2008]).

1995These provisions indicate the use of the word "attorney” in its commonly understood sense (see, Matter of Sposato [Graham], 180 Misc 933, 936 ; People v Carter, 77 NY2d 95, 108 [Titane, J., dissenting]) — an attorney-at-law and an officer of the court qualified to prosecute and defend legal actions on behalf of clients, bound by rules and principles of professional ethics and subject to internal processes of attorney discipline (see, Judiciary Law § 90; Code of Professional Responsibility EC 3-3).

1995These provisions indicate the use of the word "attorney" in its commonly understood sense ( see , Matter of Sposato [Graham] , 180 Misc 933, 936 ; People v Carter , 77 N.Y.2d 95, 108 [Titone, J., dissenting]) — an attorney-at-law and an officer of the court qualified to prosecute and defend legal actions on behalf of clients, *473 bound by rules and principles of professional ethics and subject to internal processes of attorney discipline ( see , Judiciary Law § 90; Code of Professional Responsibility EC 3-3).

1992Service of the notice of violation, or a duplicate thereof by affixation as herein provided shall have the same force and effect and shall be subject to the same penalties for disregard thereof as though the same was personally served with the name of the person charged with the violation inserted therein.” (Emphasis added.) As the Court of Appeals held in Matter of Ryder Truck Rental v Parking Violations Bur. ( 62 NY2d 667 ), this statute sets forth the mandatory requirements for the initiation of a prosecution for a parking violation, and the omission of one or more of the five specified des

1992Service of the notice of violation, or a duplicate thereof by affixation as herein provided shall have the same force and effect and shall be subject to the same penalties for disregard thereof as though the same was personally served with the name of the person charged with the violation inserted therein.” (Emphasis added.) As the Court of Appeals held in Matter of Ryder Truck Rental v Parking Violations Bur. ( 62 NY2d 667 ), this statute sets forth the mandatory requirements for the initiation of a prosecution for a parking violation, and the omission of one or more of the five specified des

1978Within the framework of the Domestic Relations Court Act such orders are also readily enforcible and therefore provide a form of poor man's equity, for the act includes a provision requiring any peace officer to whom a certiñcate of an order of protection is exhibited to arrest the person charged with violation of the order and to aid in affording the person obtaining the order the protection which the order intended.” (Emphasis supplied.) Baker v City of New York ( 25 AD2d 770, 771-772 ) involved an action to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly suffered through, in part, the negli

1961Recently, in Sacco v. Herald Statesman, Inc. ( 32 Misc 2d 739 ) Mr. Justice Hopkins dismissed a similar cause of action, citing the strict limits on the doctrine of liability for the use of “negligent language”.

1941(Matter of DeMartino v. Mealey, 284 N. Y. 231 ; People v. Sutcliffe, 255 App. Div. 299 ; People v. Serences, Id. 587; Matter of Ohmann v. Harnett, 168 Misc. 521 .) The Legislature of 1940 amended section 335-a of the Code of Criminal Procedure effective June 1, 1940, to provide as follows: “ § 335-a.

1941(Matter of DeMartino v. Mealey, 284 N. Y. 231 ; People v. Sutcliffe, 255 App. Div. 299 ; People v. Serences, Id. 587; Matter of Ohmann v. Harnett, 168 Misc. 521 .) The Legislature of 1940 amended section 335-a of the Code of Criminal Procedure effective June 1, 1940, to provide as follows: “ § 335-a.

1941(Matter of DeMartino v. Mealey, 284 N. Y. 231 ; People v. Sutcliffe, 255 App. Div. 299 ; People v. Serences, Id. 587; Matter of Ohmann v. Harnett, 168 Misc. 521 .) The Legislature of 1940 amended section 335-a of the Code of Criminal Procedure effective June 1, 1940, to provide as follows: “ § 335-a.

1940Said Mr. Justice Hubbs, writing for the court in Buffalo Gravel Corp. v. Moore (supra, p. 244): “ Persons who are threatened with damage to property rights and irreparable injury by the threatened enforcement of a void ordinance have no redress, before arrest or indictment, except an action in equity to restrain the enforcement of such void ordinance, but a person who has been arrested or indicted for violating such ordinance has a complete and adequate remedy.” The same rule" is stated in Biddles, Inc., v. Enright ( 239 N. Y. 354, 367 ) where Judge Cbane, writing for the court, said: “ There

1940Said Mr. Justice Hubbs, writing for the court in Buffalo Gravel Corp. v. Moore (supra, p. 244): “ Persons who are threatened with damage to property rights and irreparable injury by the threatened enforcement of a void ordinance have no redress, before arrest or indictment, except an action in equity to restrain the enforcement of such void ordinance, but a person who has been arrested or indicted for violating such ordinance has a complete and adequate remedy.” The same rule" is stated in Biddles, Inc., v. Enright ( 239 N. Y. 354, 367 ) where Judge Cbane, writing for the court, said: “ There

1934(People v. Kraft, supra; People v. Lord, 142 Misc. 740 .) A justice of the peace would not, therefore, have jurisdiction to try a person charged with a violation of this law but could only hold him after examination for the grand jury.

1934(People v. Kraft, supra; People v. Lord, 142 Misc. 740 .) A justice of the peace would not, therefore, have jurisdiction to try a person charged with a violation of this law but could only hold him after examination for the grand jury.

1931Proc. §§ 671, 673; The Whisky Cases, 99 U. S. 594 ; Temple v. Commonwealth, 75 Va. 892, 897 ; Matter of Irvine, 74 Fed.

1931Proc. §§ 671, 673; The Whisky Cases, 99 U. S. 594 ; Temple v. Commonwealth, 75 Va. 892, 897 ; Matter of Irvine, 74 Fed.