shield privilege in New York

2017The defendant has filed a motion alleging that three Inspectors from the Village’s Building Department conducted an illegal search of his premises without a warrant and he avers that this was in violation of the exclusionary rule pursuant to Mapp v Ohio ( 367 US 643 [1961]).

2001By the same token, in People v Harder ( 146 AD2d 286, 290-291 ), the court held that a criminal defendant would be entitled to examine confidential Family Court records of a prosecution witness if they contained information “material to the defense,” and ordered the trial court to inspect the records, on remittal, to determine if disclosure was required.

2000A section 1983 claim alleges that an individual acting under color of State law deprived the claimant of a Federal right (Gomez v Toledo, 446 US 635, 640 ).

1982A defendant is deprived of the right of confrontation “when a witness testifying to substantial matters against [him] hides behind the shield of the privilege against self incrimination when cross-examined” (People v Schneider, 44 AD2d 845 [dissenting memorandum, Hopkins, Acting P. J.], revd on dissenting memorandum below 36 NY2d 708 ).

1982A defendant is deprived of the right of confrontation “when a witness testifying to substantial matters against [him] hides behind the shield of the privilege against self incrimination when cross-examined” (People v Schneider, 44 AD2d 845 [dissenting memorandum, Hopkins, Acting P. J.], revd on dissenting memorandum below 36 NY2d 708 ).

1979Prior to today, waiver of a privilege was accomplished by express consent of the spouse or by failure to interpose a timely objection (Parkhurst v Berdell, 110 NY 386 ).

1974Deprivation of that right occurs when a witness testifying to substantial matters against a defendant hides behind the shield of the privilege against self incrimination when cross-examined (United States v. Cardillo, 316 F. 2d 606, 611 ; see, also, United States v. Norman, 402 F. 2d 73, 77 , cert. den. 397 U. S. 938 ; Fountain v. United States, 384 F. 2d 624 cert, den. sub nom.

1974Deprivation of that right occurs when a witness testifying to substantial matters against a defendant hides behind the shield of the privilege against self incrimination when cross-examined (United States v. Cardillo, 316 F. 2d 606, 611 ; see, also, United States v. Norman, 402 F. 2d 73, 77 , cert. den. 397 U. S. 938 ; Fountain v. United States, 384 F. 2d 624 cert, den. sub nom.

1974Marshall v. United States, 390 U. S. 1005 ; 5 Wigmore, Evidence [3d ed.], § 1391).

1943(Schloendorff v. New York Hospital, 211 N. Y. 125 ; Matter of Bernstein v. Beth Israel Hospital, 236 N. Y. 268 ; Phillips v. Buffalo General Hospital, 239 N. Y. 188 ; Hamburger v. Cornell University, 240 N. Y. 328 ; Mills v. Society of New York Hospital, 270 N. Y. 594 ; Steinert v. Brunswick Home, Inc., 259 App. Div. 1018 , leave to appeal denied, 284 N. Y. 822 ; Andrews v. Roosevelt Hospital, 259 App. Div. 733 ; Daniele v. Missionary Sisters of Sacred Heart, 260 App. Div. 1002 .) It is not without significance that plaintiff’s action is predicated solely on the negligence of defendant’s nurse

1943(Schloendorff v. New York Hospital, 211 N. Y. 125 ; Matter of Bernstein v. Beth Israel Hospital, 236 N. Y. 268 ; Phillips v. Buffalo General Hospital, 239 N. Y. 188 ; Hamburger v. Cornell University, 240 N. Y. 328 ; Mills v. Society of New York Hospital, 270 N. Y. 594 ; Steinert v. Brunswick Home, Inc., 259 App. Div. 1018 , leave to appeal denied, 284 N. Y. 822 ; Andrews v. Roosevelt Hospital, 259 App. Div. 733 ; Daniele v. Missionary Sisters of Sacred Heart, 260 App. Div. 1002 .) It is not without significance that plaintiff’s action is predicated solely on the negligence of defendant’s nurse

1943(Schloendorff v. New York Hospital, 211 N. Y. 125 ; Matter of Bernstein v. Beth Israel Hospital, 236 N. Y. 268 ; Phillips v. Buffalo General Hospital, 239 N. Y. 188 ; Hamburger v. Cornell University, 240 N. Y. 328 ; Mills v. Society of New York Hospital, 270 N. Y. 594 ; Steinert v. Brunswick Home, Inc., 259 App. Div. 1018 , leave to appeal denied, 284 N. Y. 822 ; Andrews v. Roosevelt Hospital, 259 App. Div. 733 ; Daniele v. Missionary Sisters of Sacred Heart, 260 App. Div. 1002 .) It is not without significance that plaintiff’s action is predicated solely on the negligence of defendant’s nurse

1943(Schloendorff v. New York Hospital, 211 N. Y. 125 ; Matter of Bernstein v. Beth Israel Hospital, 236 N. Y. 268 ; Phillips v. Buffalo General Hospital, 239 N. Y. 188 ; Hamburger v. Cornell University, 240 N. Y. 328 ; Mills v. Society of New York Hospital, 270 N. Y. 594 ; Steinert v. Brunswick Home, Inc., 259 App. Div. 1018 , leave to appeal denied, 284 N. Y. 822 ; Andrews v. Roosevelt Hospital, 259 App. Div. 733 ; Daniele v. Missionary Sisters of Sacred Heart, 260 App. Div. 1002 .) It is not without significance that plaintiff’s action is predicated solely on the negligence of defendant’s nurse

1943(Schloendorff v. New York Hospital, 211 N. Y. 125 ; Matter of Bernstein v. Beth Israel Hospital, 236 N. Y. 268 ; Phillips v. Buffalo General Hospital, 239 N. Y. 188 ; Hamburger v. Cornell University, 240 N. Y. 328 ; Mills v. Society of New York Hospital, 270 N. Y. 594 ; Steinert v. Brunswick Home, Inc., 259 App. Div. 1018 , leave to appeal denied, 284 N. Y. 822 ; Andrews v. Roosevelt Hospital, 259 App. Div. 733 ; Daniele v. Missionary Sisters of Sacred Heart, 260 App. Div. 1002 .) It is not without significance that plaintiff’s action is predicated solely on the negligence of defendant’s nurse

1943(Schloendorff v. New York Hospital, 211 N. Y. 125 ; Matter of Bernstein v. Beth Israel Hospital, 236 N. Y. 268 ; Phillips v. Buffalo General Hospital, 239 N. Y. 188 ; Hamburger v. Cornell University, 240 N. Y. 328 ; Mills v. Society of New York Hospital, 270 N. Y. 594 ; Steinert v. Brunswick Home, Inc., 259 App. Div. 1018 , leave to appeal denied, 284 N. Y. 822 ; Andrews v. Roosevelt Hospital, 259 App. Div. 733 ; Daniele v. Missionary Sisters of Sacred Heart, 260 App. Div. 1002 .) It is not without significance that plaintiff’s action is predicated solely on the negligence of defendant’s nurse

1943(Schloendorff v. New York Hospital, 211 N. Y. 125 ; Matter of Bernstein v. Beth Israel Hospital, 236 N. Y. 268 ; Phillips v. Buffalo General Hospital, 239 N. Y. 188 ; Hamburger v. Cornell University, 240 N. Y. 328 ; Mills v. Society of New York Hospital, 270 N. Y. 594 ; Steinert v. Brunswick Home, Inc., 259 App. Div. 1018 , leave to appeal denied, 284 N. Y. 822 ; Andrews v. Roosevelt Hospital, 259 App. Div. 733 ; Daniele v. Missionary Sisters of Sacred Heart, 260 App. Div. 1002 .) It is not without significance that plaintiff’s action is predicated solely on the negligence of defendant’s nurse

1943(Schloendorff v. New York Hospital, 211 N. Y. 125 ; Matter of Bernstein v. Beth Israel Hospital, 236 N. Y. 268 ; Phillips v. Buffalo General Hospital, 239 N. Y. 188 ; Hamburger v. Cornell University, 240 N. Y. 328 ; Mills v. Society of New York Hospital, 270 N. Y. 594 ; Steinert v. Brunswick Home, Inc., 259 App. Div. 1018 , leave to appeal denied, 284 N. Y. 822 ; Andrews v. Roosevelt Hospital, 259 App. Div. 733 ; Daniele v. Missionary Sisters of Sacred Heart, 260 App. Div. 1002 .) It is not without significance that plaintiff’s action is predicated solely on the negligence of defendant’s nurse

1938In this matter the undebatable material data shows that plaintiff is a holder of coupons attached to bonds of an issue known as ' “ Kingdom of Roumania Monopolies Institute 7% Guaranteed External Sinking Fund Gold Bonds, Stabilization and Development Loan of 1929,” that Kingdom of Roumania Monopolies Institute was created by law of the Kingdom of Roumania whereby it became an agency and instrumentality of that government in the exercise of its sovereign capacity, that no private interests of any kind whatsoever are either directly or indirectly concerned with the administration of the institut

1925The title is not, therefore, collaterally questioned, but is directly in issue, and is the only material fact in the case.” In Dolan v. Mayor ( 68 N. Y. 274, 279 ) Andrews, J., citing tMs case with approval, writes: “ It is the settled doctrine in tMs State, that the right to the salary and emoluments of a public office, attach to the true and not to the mere colorable title, and in an action brought by a person claiming to be a public officer for the fees or compensation given by law, his title to the office is in issue, and if that is defective and another has the real right, although not in

1911As is said in Wigmore on Evidence (§ 2268), “ The privilege is simply an option of refusal, not a prohibition of inquiry.” The only case cited in support of the order appealed from which may be said to be in point is Matter of Foster ( 139 App. Div. 769 ).

1890Id.

1875And, clearly, he cannot recover fees, or set up any right of property on the ground that he is an officer de facto, unless he be also an officer dejureP And he cites the following cases in support of his position: Riddle v. Co. of Bedford (1 S. & R., 386); Keyser v. McKissan ( 2 Rawle, 139 ); Fowler v. Beebee ( 9 Mass., 231 ); Green v. Burke ( 23 Wend., 490 ); People v. White (24 id., 526 ).

1875And, clearly, he cannot recover fees, or set up any right of property on the ground that he is an officer de facto, unless he be also an officer dejureP And he cites the following cases in support of his position: Riddle v. Co. of Bedford (1 S. & R., 386); Keyser v. McKissan ( 2 Rawle, 139 ); Fowler v. Beebee ( 9 Mass., 231 ); Green v. Burke ( 23 Wend., 490 ); People v. White (24 id., 526 ).

1875And, clearly, he cannot recover fees, or set up any right of property on the ground that he is an officer de facto, unless he be also an officer dejureP And he cites the following cases in support of his position: Riddle v. Co. of Bedford (1 S. & R., 386); Keyser v. McKissan ( 2 Rawle, 139 ); Fowler v. Beebee ( 9 Mass., 231 ); Green v. Burke ( 23 Wend., 490 ); People v. White (24 id., 526 ).

1875And, clearly, he cannot recover fees, or set up any right of property on the ground that he is an officer de facto, unless he be also an officer dejureP And he cites the following cases in support of his position: Riddle v. Co. of Bedford (1 S. & R., 386); Keyser v. McKissan ( 2 Rawle, 139 ); Fowler v. Beebee ( 9 Mass., 231 ); Green v. Burke ( 23 Wend., 490 ); People v. White (24 id., 526 ).