insufficiency defense in New York

1910(Jones v. Gould, 130 App. Div. 451 ; Milliken v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 129 id. 206; Searle v. Halstead & Co., 130 id. 693; Levy v. Roosevelt, 131 id. 8; Crimmins v. Carlyle Realty Co., 132 id. 664; Ship v. Fridenberg, Id. 782.) The learned Special'Térm in examining these decisions, óf which he was aware, was of opinion that the precise point had never been raised, and, as reported, they do not disclose that it had been.

1909(Jones v. Gould, 130 App. Div. 451 ; Milliken v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 129 id. 206; Searle v. Halstead & Co., 130 id. 693; Levy v. Roosevelt, 131 id. 8; Crimmins v. Carlyle Realty Co., 132 id. 664; Ship v. Fridenberg, Id. 782.) The learned Special Term in examining these decisions,- of which he was.aware, was of opinion that the precisé point had.never been raised, and, as reported, they do not disclose that it had been.

2018It was within the jury's province to weigh the credibility of the evidence on that issue and, by reaching a different conclusion, the dissent is engaging in a weight of the evidence review, not an insufficiency analysis ( see generally Cohen , 45 NY2d at 498-499 ).

1995Contrary to defendant’s claim, the "moral certainty” standard of review is not available to an appellate court in deciding an insufficiency claim (People v Williams, 84 NY2d 925 ).

1995Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (People v Acosta, 80 NY2d 665, 672 ), and giving deference to the jury’s findings of credibility (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 ), we conclude that defendant’s guilt was proved by legally sufficient evidence and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence.

1995Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (People v Acosta, 80 NY2d 665, 672 ), and giving deference to the jury’s findings of credibility (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 ), we conclude that defendant’s guilt was proved by legally sufficient evidence and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence.

1988(CPL 210.30 [6]; People v Hallett, 71 AD2d 815 , mot to reinstate dismissed appeal denied 60 NY2d 698 .) However, in People v Pelchat ( 62 NY2d 97, 106 ), the Court of Appeals stated that appellate review of a defendant’s claim of legally insufficient evidence before the Grand Jury will not be foreclosed after judgment in certain circumstances.

1988(CPL 70.10 [1]; People v Haney, 30 NY2d 328, 335-336 .) Where a claim of legal insufficiency has been unsuccessfully asserted, and a judgment of conviction based upon legally sufficient trial evidence is subsequently rendered, appellate review of the insufficiency claim will generally be barred.

1988(CPL 210.30 [6]; People v Hallett, 71 AD2d 815 , mot to reinstate dismissed appeal denied 60 NY2d 698 .) However, in People v Pelchat ( 62 NY2d 97, 106 ), the Court of Appeals stated that appellate review of a defendant’s claim of legally insufficient evidence before the Grand Jury will not be foreclosed after judgment in certain circumstances.

1988(CPL 210.30 [6]; People v Hallett, 71 AD2d 815 , mot to reinstate dismissed appeal denied 60 NY2d 698 .) However, in People v Pelchat ( 62 NY2d 97, 106 ), the Court of Appeals stated that appellate review of a defendant’s claim of legally insufficient evidence before the Grand Jury will not be foreclosed after judgment in certain circumstances.

1985In any event, the insufficiency of the instruction was not such as to constitute the denial of a fair trial (see, People v Grant, supra).

1976"While ordinarily leave to serve an amended pleading should be freely given (CPLR 3025, subd. [b]), where the insufficiency of the proposed pleading is clear and free from doubt permission to serve it should be denied as a matter of law.” (Grafer v Marko Beer & Beverages, 36 AD2d 295, 296 .) Particularly is this true where, as here, the parties have fully briefed and submitted the issue of the insufficiency of the defense as a matter of law.

1961(Monica Realty Corp. v. Bleecker, 229 App. Div. 184 ; Romaneck v. Bauer, 250 App. Div. 734 .) The insufficiency of the defense, however, must appear - on the face thereof.

1961(Monica Realty Corp. v. Bleecker, 229 App. Div. 184 ; Romaneck v. Bauer, 250 App. Div. 734 .) The insufficiency of the defense, however, must appear - on the face thereof.

1961(Charles v. Murphy, 284 App. Div. 987 .) The question to be considered is whether the defense stricken constitutes a possible defense to the cause of action purported to be alleged in the complaint, for a motion of this kind searches the record.

1957If the order of dissolution was jurisdictionally valid, the defendant could not attack such order collaterally and the motion to strike the defense would be justified (Arcuri v. Arcuri, 265 N. Y. 358 ; Matter of Aumick, 279 App. Div. 846 ; Matter of Valle, 131 N. Y.

1957If the order of dissolution was jurisdictionally valid, the defendant could not attack such order collaterally and the motion to strike the defense would be justified (Arcuri v. Arcuri, 265 N. Y. 358 ; Matter of Aumick, 279 App. Div. 846 ; Matter of Valle, 131 N. Y.

1939(Welch v. City of Niagara Falls, 210 App. Div. 170 ; Reddington v. Elco Merchandising Corp., Inc., 236 App. Div. 64 .) That both actions involved the same accident and common questions, may be a ground for consolidation, at least for purposes of trial, but the prior action is not another action pending between the same parties for the same cause.

1939(Welch v. City of Niagara Falls, 210 App. Div. 170 ; Reddington v. Elco Merchandising Corp., Inc., 236 App. Div. 64 .) That both actions involved the same accident and common questions, may be a ground for consolidation, at least for purposes of trial, but the prior action is not another action pending between the same parties for the same cause.

1927It is settled law that “ the lessor is not required to lease to another if he have an opportunity.” (Becar v. Flues, 64 N. Y. 518 .) The usual obligation to reduce damages “ has no application to a contract of leasing, as the latter is governed by peculiar and entirely different rules.” (Gray v. Kaufman Dairy & Ice Cream Co., 9 App. Div. 115, 119 .) Rent is.a fixed compensation for a vested interest.

1927It is settled law that “ the lessor is not required to lease to another if he have an opportunity.” (Becar v. Flues, 64 N. Y. 518 .) The usual obligation to reduce damages “ has no application to a contract of leasing, as the latter is governed by peculiar and entirely different rules.” (Gray v. Kaufman Dairy & Ice Cream Co., 9 App. Div. 115, 119 .) Rent is.a fixed compensation for a vested interest.