Arthur rule in New York

1984Also recognized was the continued vitality of the Taylor-Hetherington unrelated crime exception to the Arthur rule (People v Hobson, supra, p 483 ).

1984Also recognized was the continued vitality of the Taylor-Hetherington unrelated crime exception to the Arthur rule (People v Hobson, supra, p 483 ).

1979It is true that previous decisions of this court, rendered in an era when the Arthur rule was in doubt, excepted from its scope questioning about a charge unrelated to the one on which defendant was represented (see People v Taylor, 27 NY2d 327 ; People v Hetherington, 27 NY2d 242 ; but see People v Vella, 21 NY2d 249 ).

1978It is true, as the County Court recognized, that the rule of Arthur is not absolute and that the fact that a defendant is represented by counsel in a proceeding unrelated to the charges under investigation is not sufficient to invoke the Arthur rule (People v Stanley, supra; People v Hetherington, 27 NY2d 242, 245 ; People v Taylor, 27 NY2d 327, 331-332 ).

1979Specifically, in People v Ramos ( 40 NY2d 610 ), where the defendant, who was represented by an attorney on a drug charge, had been advised not to make any statements at the time of his arrest on an unrelated charge, the advice of the attorney was deemed sufficient to trigger the Arthur rule, and the statements concerning the unrelated charge were suppressed.

1979Specifically, in People v Ramos ( 40 NY2d 610 ), where the defendant, who was represented by an attorney on a drug charge, had been advised not to make any statements at the time of his arrest on an unrelated charge, the advice of the attorney was deemed sufficient to trigger the Arthur rule, and the statements concerning the unrelated charge were suppressed.

1979It is true that previous decisions of this court, rendered in an era when the Arthur rule was in doubt, excepted from its scope questioning about a charge unrelated to the one on which defendant was represented (see People v Taylor, 27 NY2d 327 ; People v Hetherington, 27 NY2d 242 ; but see People v Vella, 21 NY2d 249 ).

1978It is true, as the County Court recognized, that the rule of Arthur is not absolute and that the fact that a defendant is represented by counsel in a proceeding unrelated to the charges under investigation is not sufficient to invoke the Arthur rule (People v Stanley, supra; People v Hetherington, 27 NY2d 242, 245 ; People v Taylor, 27 NY2d 327, 331-332 ).

1978(People v Arthur, 22 NY2d 325, 329 .) While the fact that a person is represented by counsel in a proceeding unrelated to the charges under investigation is not sufficient to trigger the Arthur rule (People v Hetherington, 27 NY2d 242 ; People v Taylor, 27 NY2d 327 ; People v Ramos, 40 NY2d 610 ; People v Ermo, 61 AD2d 177 ), and while the Arthur rule does not apply to a noncustodial interrogation (People v McKie, 25 NY2d 19 ), the Court of Appeals has repeatedly reiterated the importance of the rule in New York practice.

1978(People v Arthur, 22 NY2d 325, 329 .) While the fact that a person is represented by counsel in a proceeding unrelated to the charges under investigation is not sufficient to trigger the Arthur rule (People v Hetherington, 27 NY2d 242 ; People v Taylor, 27 NY2d 327 ; People v Ramos, 40 NY2d 610 ; People v Ermo, 61 AD2d 177 ), and while the Arthur rule does not apply to a noncustodial interrogation (People v McKie, 25 NY2d 19 ), the Court of Appeals has repeatedly reiterated the importance of the rule in New York practice.

1976In People v Hobson (supra p 483 ) it was stated that defendants could be questioned as to unrelated criminal activity without the presence of counsel (People v Hetherington, 27 NY2d 242 ); that the Arthur rule does not apply to defendants who are not in custody (People v McKie, 25 NY2d 19 ); and, that spontaneously volunteered statements would be admissible (People v Kaye, 25 NY2d 139 ).

1976In People v Hobson (supra p 483 ) it was stated that defendants could be questioned as to unrelated criminal activity without the presence of counsel (People v Hetherington, 27 NY2d 242 ); that the Arthur rule does not apply to defendants who are not in custody (People v McKie, 25 NY2d 19 ); and, that spontaneously volunteered statements would be admissible (People v Kaye, 25 NY2d 139 ).

1985In People v Rogers ( 48 NY2d 167 ), the Court of Appeals extended the Arthur rule by declaring that if a defendant who is in custody is represented by an attorney on any pending criminal charge, including one unrelated to the matter under investigation, he cannot effectively waive his right to counsel without counsel being present.

1985In People v Rogers ( 48 NY2d 167 ), the Court of Appeals extended the Arthur rule by declaring that if a defendant who is in custody is represented by an attorney on any pending criminal charge, including one unrelated to the matter under investigation, he cannot effectively waive his right to counsel without counsel being present.

2018Hosp ., 53 AD3d at 608 ; Cardenales v Queens-Long Is.

2018Under these circumstances, since the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether she was a patient of the Practice, and therefore whether the continuous treatment of the plaintiff by DeChiara during the period at issue may be imputed to the Practice and its employee Arthur so as to render the action against Arthur timely, we agree with the Supreme Court's denial of Arthur's motion ( see Mule v Peloro , 60 AD3d 649, 650 ; Scalcione v Winthrop Univ.

2018A defendant who seeks dismissal of a complaint on the ground that it is barred by the statute of limitations bears the initial burden of proving, prima facie, that the time in which to commence an action has expired ( see CPLR 214-a; Gomez v Katz , 61 AD3d 108, 113 ; Kaufmann v Fulop , 47 AD3d 682, 683 ).

2018A defendant who seeks dismissal of a complaint on the ground that it is barred by the statute of limitations bears the initial burden of proving, prima facie, that the time in which to commence an action has expired ( see CPLR 214-a; Gomez v Katz , 61 AD3d 108, 113 ; Kaufmann v Fulop , 47 AD3d 682, 683 ).

2010As we said in Ramos , the rule "authorizing review of unpreserved constitutional right-to-counsel claims" has been applied "only when the constitutional violation was established on the face of the record" ( 99 NY2d at 37 ).

2010As we said in Ramos , the rule "authorizing review of unpreserved constitutional right-to-counsel claims" has been applied "only when the constitutional violation was established on the face of the record" ( 99 NY2d at 37 ).

1984The court’s dissatisfaction with the unrelated crimes exception, however, soon became evident (see People v Ramos, 40 NY2d 610 ; People v Carl, 46 NY2d 806 ; People v Ermo, 47 NY2d 863 ).

1984The court’s dissatisfaction with the unrelated crimes exception, however, soon became evident (see People v Ramos, 40 NY2d 610 ; People v Carl, 46 NY2d 806 ; People v Ermo, 47 NY2d 863 ).

1984The court’s dissatisfaction with the unrelated crimes exception, however, soon became evident (see People v Ramos, 40 NY2d 610 ; People v Carl, 46 NY2d 806 ; People v Ermo, 47 NY2d 863 ).

1984The court’s dissatisfaction with the unrelated crimes exception, however, soon became evident (see People v Ramos, 40 NY2d 610 ; People v Carl, 46 NY2d 806 ; People v Ermo, 47 NY2d 863 ).

1978(People v Arthur, 22 NY2d 325, 329 .) While the fact that a person is represented by counsel in a proceeding unrelated to the charges under investigation is not sufficient to trigger the Arthur rule (People v Hetherington, 27 NY2d 242 ; People v Taylor, 27 NY2d 327 ; People v Ramos, 40 NY2d 610 ; People v Ermo, 61 AD2d 177 ), and while the Arthur rule does not apply to a noncustodial interrogation (People v McKie, 25 NY2d 19 ), the Court of Appeals has repeatedly reiterated the importance of the rule in New York practice.

1978(People v Arthur, 22 NY2d 325, 329 .) While the fact that a person is represented by counsel in a proceeding unrelated to the charges under investigation is not sufficient to trigger the Arthur rule (People v Hetherington, 27 NY2d 242 ; People v Taylor, 27 NY2d 327 ; People v Ramos, 40 NY2d 610 ; People v Ermo, 61 AD2d 177 ), and while the Arthur rule does not apply to a noncustodial interrogation (People v McKie, 25 NY2d 19 ), the Court of Appeals has repeatedly reiterated the importance of the rule in New York practice.

1978It is true, as the County Court recognized, that the rule of Arthur is not absolute and that the fact that a defendant is represented by counsel in a proceeding unrelated to the charges under investigation is not sufficient to invoke the Arthur rule (People v Stanley, supra; People v Hetherington, 27 NY2d 242, 245 ; People v Taylor, 27 NY2d 327, 331-332 ).

1978It is true, as the County Court recognized, that the rule of Arthur is not absolute and that the fact that a defendant is represented by counsel in a proceeding unrelated to the charges under investigation is not sufficient to invoke the Arthur rule (People v Stanley, supra; People v Hetherington, 27 NY2d 242, 245 ; People v Taylor, 27 NY2d 327, 331-332 ).

1976The present record does not establish that counsel for the defendant had in fact been contacted by the local court of Guilderland as of September 12 or that he had appeared prior to the admissions (People v Witenski, 15 NY2d 392, 397 ).

1976The present record does not establish that counsel for the defendant had in fact been contacted by the local court of Guilderland as of September 12 or that he had appeared prior to the admissions (People v Witenski, 15 NY2d 392, 397 ).