framework analysis in New York

2025GML § 50-(e)(2) requires, in relevant part, each notice of claim to "be in writing, sworn to by or on behalf of the claimant, and shall set forth: (1) the name and post-office address of each claimant, and of his attorney, if any; (2) the nature of the claim; (3) the time when, the place where and the manner in which the claim arose; and (4) the items of damage or injuries claimed to have been sustained." GML § 50-(e)(S) provides the framework to analysis an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim and states, in relevant part, "in determining whether to grant the extension the co

2025GML § 50-e(6) outlines the process to correct any mistakes, omissions, irregularities or defects made in the notice of claim and states "at any time after the service of a notice of claim and at any stage of an action or special proceeding to which the provisions of this section are applicable, a mistake, omission, irregularity or defect made in good faith in the notice of claim required to be served by this section, not pertaining to the manner or time of service thereof, may be corrected, supplied or disregarded, as the case may be, in the discretion of the court, provided it shall appear th

2013While these factors are not exhaustive or dispositive, they provide a framework for the analysis (Smith, 538 US at 97 ).

2013The factors must be considered in relation to the statute on its face (Kennedy, 372 US at 169 ).

1998Corp., 57 NY2d 872 [1982].) Accordingly, following this framework for analysis, the only conclusion to be drawn from the language and terms of the Utica Mutual policy is that the policy did not specifically disclaim umbrella coverage for the employer’s liability coverage in the Republic Western policy.

1980(People v Edwards, supra, pp 496-497 .) In People v Edwards (supra, p 497 ), the court further observed: "Above all, the decisive factor is whether the surrounding circumstances reasonably justify the conclusion that the remarks were not made under the impetus of studied reflection.” Here the court determined that the statements were made within the framework of the rule enunciated in People v Edwards (supra).

1980(People v Edwards, supra, pp 496-497 .) In People v Edwards (supra, p 497 ), the court further observed: "Above all, the decisive factor is whether the surrounding circumstances reasonably justify the conclusion that the remarks were not made under the impetus of studied reflection.” Here the court determined that the statements were made within the framework of the rule enunciated in People v Edwards (supra).

1979We must decide, first, whether the Texas system of financing public education operates to the disadvantage of some specific class or impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly protected by the Constitution, thereby requiring strict judicial scrutiny. * * * If not, the Texas scheme must still be examined to determine whether it rationally furthers some legitimate, articulated state purpose and therefore does not constitute an invidious discrimination of violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” (San Antonio School Dist. v Rodriquez, supra, p 17.) The

1977Auth., 48 AD2d 83 ), and likewise fails to raise an issue within the purview of CPLR 7803 (subd 4).

1977Rather, the Fourth Amendment demands that the State shall not benefit by the use of evidence unlawfully obtained.” In People v Evans ( 43 NY2d 160, 164 ) the court distinguished a number of cases which had sustained police intrusions as follows: "In most of these cases the permissible scope of intrusion was justified substantially by the need to ensure the personal safety of the policemen involved.” (c) In discussing the framework of analysis for unlawful search and seizure cases, the Court of Appeals in People v Stewart ( 41 NY2d 65 , 66), laid down this rule: "Simply stated the proper analys

1976The cases cited in the dissent (Brown v Illinois, 422 US 590 ; People v Martinez, 37 NY2d 662 ) are not within the framework of the inquiry delineated by the Supreme Court in the instant case.

1976The cases cited in the dissent (Brown v Illinois, 422 US 590 ; People v Martinez, 37 NY2d 662 ) are not within the framework of the inquiry delineated by the Supreme Court in the instant case.