approval requirement in New York

2016As a result, we must affirm the Board’s decision to deny the uninsured employers’ application to rescind the agreement (see Matter of Palmer v Special Metals Corp., 42 AD3d at 834 ; compare Matter of Nickel v Pilgrim Psychiatric, 84 AD3d at 1491 ).

2007Upon learning of various “postings” by the jurors in the jury room during a trial recess the trial court, with the approval of the defense counsel and the prosecutor, properly carried out a complete inquiry of each juror and alternate individually, ascertaining the nature of the matters posted and any possible discussions and the extent of those discussions, as well as whether the postings and discussions affected each juror’s ability to assess the credibility of witnesses, and whether each juror had formed an opinion as to the defendant’s guilt or innocence (see People v Simon, 224 AD2d at 45

1996Upon learning of discussions among the jurors during a trial recess the court, with the approval of defense counsel and the prosecutor, properly "carried out a complete inquiry of each juror and alternate individually, ascertaining the nature of the matters discussed and the extent of those discussions” as well as whether anything each juror heard affected their ability to assess the credibility of witnesses, and whether each juror had formed an opinion as to the defendant’s guilt or innocence (see, People v Castillo, 144 AD2d 376 ; People v Pollard, 150 AD2d 397, 398 ).

1996Upon learning of discussions among the jurors during a trial recess the court, with the approval of defense counsel and the prosecutor, properly "carried out a complete inquiry of each juror and alternate individually, ascertaining the nature of the matters discussed and the extent of those discussions” as well as whether anything each juror heard affected their ability to assess the credibility of witnesses, and whether each juror had formed an opinion as to the defendant’s guilt or innocence (see, People v Castillo, 144 AD2d 376 ; People v Pollard, 150 AD2d 397, 398 ).

1990Social legislation must be interpreted and enforced in a "reasonable and humane manner in accordance with its manifest intent and purpose" ( Matter of Sabot v Lavine , 42 N.Y.2d 1068, 1069 ; see , Sawma v State of New York , 72 N.Y.2d 979, 980 ; O'Neill v Blum , 95 AD2d 357, 360-361 ).

1990Social legislation must be interpreted and enforced in a "reasonable and humane manner in accordance with its manifest intent and purpose” (Matter of Sabot v Lavine, 42 NY2d 1068, 1069 ; see, Sawma v State of New York, 72 NY2d 979, 980 ; O’Neill v Blum, 95 AD2d 357, 360-361 ).

1990I would reject the rigid application of the prior approval requirement under the particular circumstances of this case, and grant the petition herein to the limited extent of requiring respondent to process the rejected transportation claims ( cf. , Matter of Bryson v Blum , 97 AD2d 514, 515 ; O'Neill v Blum , 95 AD2d 357, 361 , supra ).

1990I would reject the rigid application of the prior approval requirement under the particular circumstances of this case, and grant the petition herein to the limited extent of requiring respondent to process the rejected transportation claims (cf., Matter of Bryson v Blum, 97 AD2d 514, 515 ; O’Neill v Blum, 95 AD2d 357, 361 , supra).

1990I would reject the rigid application of the prior approval requirement under the particular circumstances of this case, and grant the petition herein to the limited extent of requiring respondent to process the rejected transportation claims ( cf. , Matter of Bryson v Blum , 97 AD2d 514, 515 ; O'Neill v Blum , 95 AD2d 357, 361 , supra ).

1990I would reject the rigid application of the prior approval requirement under the particular circumstances of this case, and grant the petition herein to the limited extent of requiring respondent to process the rejected transportation claims (cf., Matter of Bryson v Blum, 97 AD2d 514, 515 ; O’Neill v Blum, 95 AD2d 357, 361 , supra).

1990We find that the defendant affirmatively waived his right to suppression of the heroin and cocaine which was seized from him, even assuming, arguendo, that the court’s later ruling was correct (see, People v Bertolo, 65 NY2d 111 , 121; People v Wachtel, 124 AD2d 613, 615 , lv denied 69 NY2d 835 ).

1988If there are matters dehors the record which call into question the court’s approval of the waiver, the defendant’s remedy is to make an application pursuant to CPL 440.10 (see, People v Johnson, supra).

1965While this argument might have some efficacy if the approval clause were contained in a separate contract (Bidwell v. Long, 14 A D 2d 168), such is not the case here where it is an integral part of the agreement seeking to be enforced (Wilhelm v. Wood, 151 App. Div. 42 ; Wagner v. Zonghetti Constr.

1953In view of the amendment of section 4 (supra) to include sodomy among the exceptions to the requirement of a public trial, and the approval of the doctrine of People v. Hall (supra) by the Legislature and the Judicial Council, this court is constrained to hold that the order of the Court of General Sessions excluding the public and the press from the Jelke trial was one which the Trial Judge had the power to make.

1931The opinion of this court cites Derry v. Peek, and states the holding there made that an action would not lie if the defendant believed the representation made by him to be true, although without reasonable cause for such belief. “ It is not necessary,” we said, “to go to this extent to uphold the present judgment, for the referee, as has been stated, found that the belief of Kennedy * * * was based upon reasonable grounds.” The setting of the occasion justified the inference that the representations did not involve a profession of knowledge as distinguished from belief ( 147 N. Y. at p. 133 )

1921These two latter cases are not directly in point, but approve of the case of Beymer v. Bonsall, supra. The case of Beymer v. Bonsall is disapproved in Barrell v. Newby, 62 C.

1921The ruling in these last two cases is largely on the approval of the principle in Beymer v. Bonsall, supra, and is to be found in Cobb v. Knapp, 71 N. Y. 348 , and First National Bank v. Wallis, 84 Hun, 376 .

1921The ruling in these last two cases is largely on the approval of the principle in Beymer v. Bonsall, supra, and is to be found in Cobb v. Knapp, 71 N. Y. 348 , and First National Bank v. Wallis, 84 Hun, 376 .

1921These two latter cases are not directly in point, but approve of the case of Beymer v. Bonsall, supra. The case of Beymer v. Bonsall is disapproved in Barrell v. Newby, 62 C.

1921The ruling in these last two cases is largely on the approval of the principle in Beymer v. Bonsall, supra, and is to be found in Cobb v. Knapp, 71 N. Y. 348 , and First National Bank v. Wallis, 84 Hun, 376 .