prompt hearing in New York

2023We affirm. "[A] claim that a probationer was not promptly brought before the court following the filing of a declaration of delinquency is subject to the usual rules of preservation" ( People v Horvath , 37 AD3d 33, 36 [2d Dept 2006]), as is any assertion that a probationer "was denied a prompt hearing pursuant to CPL 410.30 on the violation of probation petition" ( People v Mills , 45 AD3d 892, 894 [3d Dept 2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1036 [2008]).

2015Here, defendant contends that he was deprived of a prompt hearing based upon the four factors set forth in People v Horvath ( 37 AD3d 33, 38 [2006]), i.e., “the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, whether the probationer is responsible in any portion of the delay, and whether the probationer has suffered prejudice as a result of the delay.” We reject that contention.

2012To the extent that defendant contends that the asserted delay in issuing the declaration of delinquency deprived her of a prompt hearing (see CPL 410.30, 410.70 [1]), her failure to raise this issue at the violation hearing renders it unpreserved for our review (see People v Mills, 45 AD3d 892, 894 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1036 [2008]; People v Williams, 19 AD3d 868, 869 [2005]).

2012To the extent that defendant contends that the asserted delay in issuing the declaration of delinquency deprived her of a prompt hearing (see CPL 410.30, 410.70 [1]), her failure to raise this issue at the violation hearing renders it unpreserved for our review (see People v Mills, 45 AD3d 892, 894 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1036 [2008]; People v Williams, 19 AD3d 868, 869 [2005]).

2023We affirm. "[A] claim that a probationer was not promptly brought before the court following the filing of a declaration of delinquency is subject to the usual rules of preservation" ( People v Horvath , 37 AD3d 33, 36 [2d Dept 2006]), as is any assertion that a probationer "was denied a prompt hearing pursuant to CPL 410.30 on the violation of probation petition" ( People v Mills , 45 AD3d 892, 894 [3d Dept 2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1036 [2008]).

2012To the extent that defendant contends that the asserted delay in issuing the declaration of delinquency deprived her of a prompt hearing (see CPL 410.30, 410.70 [1]), her failure to raise this issue at the violation hearing renders it unpreserved for our review (see People v Mills, 45 AD3d 892, 894 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1036 [2008]; People v Williams, 19 AD3d 868, 869 [2005]).

1981(CPL 140.50, subd 1.) Indeed, the Court of Appeals has said that “Prompt inquiry into suspicious or unusual street action is an indispensable police power in the orderly government of large urban communities.” (People v Rivera, 14 NY2d 441, 444 , cert den 379 US 978 .) The questions asked were limited in scope, and thus the intrusion was minimal, comporting with the suspicious but still, at this point, equivocal nature of defendants’ actions.

1979In People v Rivera ( 14 NY2d 441, 444-445 , cert den 379 US 978 ) the Court of Appeals said: 'Prompt inquiry into suspicious or unusual street action is an indispensable police power in the orderly government of large urban communities.

2014Since the jury is presumed to have followed the trial court’s prompt instruction that there was no evidence that the defendant authorized the attempted bribe, such testimony did not provide a basis for the drastic remedy of a mistrial (see generally People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]; People v Leon, 98 AD3d 1065 [2012]; People v Thompson, 81 AD3d 670, 673 [2011]; People v Heath, 70 AD3d 857, 857 [2010]).

2014Since the jury is presumed to have followed the trial court’s prompt instruction that there was no evidence that the defendant authorized the attempted bribe, such testimony did not provide a basis for the drastic remedy of a mistrial (see generally People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]; People v Leon, 98 AD3d 1065 [2012]; People v Thompson, 81 AD3d 670, 673 [2011]; People v Heath, 70 AD3d 857, 857 [2010]).

2024Defendant cites to other comments by the prosecutor during summation; however, given that contemporaneous objections were not made to many of these remarks, his challenge to same is unpreserved ( see People v Hilton , 185 AD3d 1147, 1150 [3d Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1095 [2020]; People v Drayton , 183 AD3d [*4]1008, 302 [3d Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1065 [2020]).

2024Defendant cites to other comments by the prosecutor during summation; however, given that contemporaneous objections were not made to many of these remarks, his challenge to same is unpreserved ( see People v Hilton , 185 AD3d 1147, 1150 [3d Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1095 [2020]; People v Drayton , 183 AD3d [*4]1008, 302 [3d Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1065 [2020]).

2024Given the court's prompt instruction to disregard the testimony and cautioning of the People to ensure similar testimony was not elicited again, any prejudice to defendant was ameliorated ( see People v Hadlock , 218 AD3d 925, 930 [3d Dept 2023], lv denied 40 NY3d 997 [2023]; People v Nadal , 131 AD3d 729, 731 [3d Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1041 [2015]).

2024Given the court's prompt instruction to disregard the testimony and cautioning of the People to ensure similar testimony was not elicited again, any prejudice to defendant was ameliorated ( see People v Hadlock , 218 AD3d 925, 930 [3d Dept 2023], lv denied 40 NY3d 997 [2023]; People v Nadal , 131 AD3d 729, 731 [3d Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1041 [2015]).

2024Given the court's prompt instruction to disregard the testimony and cautioning of the People to ensure similar testimony was not elicited again, any prejudice to defendant was ameliorated ( see People v Hadlock , 218 AD3d 925, 930 [3d Dept 2023], lv denied 40 NY3d 997 [2023]; People v Nadal , 131 AD3d 729, 731 [3d Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1041 [2015]).

2024Given the court's prompt instruction to disregard the testimony and cautioning of the People to ensure similar testimony was not elicited again, any prejudice to defendant was ameliorated ( see People v Hadlock , 218 AD3d 925, 930 [3d Dept 2023], lv denied 40 NY3d 997 [2023]; People v Nadal , 131 AD3d 729, 731 [3d Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1041 [2015]).

2014Since the jury is presumed to have followed the trial court’s prompt instruction that there was no evidence that the defendant authorized the attempted bribe, such testimony did not provide a basis for the drastic remedy of a mistrial (see generally People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]; People v Leon, 98 AD3d 1065 [2012]; People v Thompson, 81 AD3d 670, 673 [2011]; People v Heath, 70 AD3d 857, 857 [2010]).

2014Since the jury is presumed to have followed the trial court’s prompt instruction that there was no evidence that the defendant authorized the attempted bribe, such testimony did not provide a basis for the drastic remedy of a mistrial (see generally People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]; People v Leon, 98 AD3d 1065 [2012]; People v Thompson, 81 AD3d 670, 673 [2011]; People v Heath, 70 AD3d 857, 857 [2010]).

2014Since the jury is presumed to have followed the trial court’s prompt instruction that there was no evidence that the defendant authorized the attempted bribe, such testimony did not provide a basis for the drastic remedy of a mistrial (see generally People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]; People v Leon, 98 AD3d 1065 [2012]; People v Thompson, 81 AD3d 670, 673 [2011]; People v Heath, 70 AD3d 857, 857 [2010]).

2014Since the jury is presumed to have followed the trial court’s prompt instruction that there was no evidence that the defendant authorized the attempted bribe, such testimony did not provide a basis for the drastic remedy of a mistrial (see generally People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]; People v Leon, 98 AD3d 1065 [2012]; People v Thompson, 81 AD3d 670, 673 [2011]; People v Heath, 70 AD3d 857, 857 [2010]).

2014Defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146-147 [1981]).

2014Defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146-147 [1981]).

2012Turning to the merits, the People bore the burden of proving — by a preponderance of the evidence— that defendant violated a condition of her probation (see CPL 470.10 [3]; People v Hunter, 62 AD3d 1207, 1208 [2009]).

2012Turning to the merits, the People bore the burden of proving — by a preponderance of the evidence— that defendant violated a condition of her probation (see CPL 470.10 [3]; People v Hunter, 62 AD3d 1207, 1208 [2009]).

2009(Fuentes v Shevin, 407 US 67 [1972] [14th Amendment violated when a state’s prejudgment replevin law authorizes seizure of goods by state agents based on private person’s civil complaint], reh denied 409 US 902 [1972]; Matter of Nadeau v Sullivan, 204 AD2d 913 [3d Dept 1994] [respondent not denied due process with issuance of ex parte temporary order of protection; there was no finding of wrongdoing]; People v Forman, 145 Misc 2d 115, 129 [Crim Ct, NY County 1989] [respondent is entitled to a prompt hearing after exclusion from the home].) “While these private interests are deserving of consti

2009(People v Forman, 145 Misc 2d 115, 126 [Crim Ct, NY County 1989] [after allegedly punching his wife in the face respondent was excluded from the home].) Extraordinary circumstances and an overriding state interest in protecting victims of domestic violence allow for exclusion with a prompt hearing to follow.

2007Under settled law, a claim that a defendant was denied a prompt hearing pursuant to CPL 410.30 on the violation of probation petition must be raised at the probation violation hearing in order to be preserved for appellate review (see People v Douglas, 94 NY2d 807, 808 [1999]; People v Williams, 19 AD3d 868, 869 [2005]).

2005Defendant’s claim that he was denied a prompt hearing on the violation of probation petition (see CPL 410.30) is not preserved for appellate review by his failure to raise this issue at the probation violation hearing (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Douglas, 94 NY2d 807, 808 [1999]; People v Frierson, 1 AD3d 711 , 711 [2003]).

2005Contrary to defendant’s other contention on appeal, we find no abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice, particularly given defendant’s continued criminal conduct and his repeated violations of the terms of his probation (see People v Parsons, 15 AD3d 728, 729 [2005]; People v Chaires, 1 AD3d 630, 631 [2003]; People v Bell, 255 AD2d 836 , 836 [1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 966 [1999]).

2005As to the merits, defendant’s admissions at the hearing were sufficient to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he violated the terms of his probation (see People v Parsons, 15 AD3d 728, 728 [2005]; People v Romeo, 9 AD3d 744, 745 [2004]).

1982Walsh v Vincent, 40 NY2d 1049, 1050 .) And, if he is not afforded a prompt hearing, it falls upon the State to carry “the modest burden” of demonstrating that, by reason of his incarceration, the parolee was not subject to the board’s convenience and control.

1977Walsh v Vincent ( 40 NY2d 1049 ) the Court of Appeals in a brief majority opinion has held that a prompt hearing must be held even when the parolee was held on charges of a subsequent crime and has been found guilty of such crime.

2005Addressing the statutory requirement of a prompt hearing {see CPL 410.70 [1]), the record demonstrates that there was neither a statutory nor due process violation (see People v Harris, 301 AD2d 753, 753-754 [2003], lv denied 99 NY2d 629 [2003]) because defendant’s hearing was delayed as a result of his own requests. * With respect to those contentions alleging calendaring delays, we find that County Court properly exercised its discretion in managing its docket (see People v Brewer, 91 NY2d 999, 1000 [1998]).

2003Noting that trial courts are empowered with considerable discretion in handling probation revocation hearings and in managing their dockets in general (see People v Brewer, 91 NY2d 999, 1000 ), we reject defendant’s contention that he was not provided a prompt hearing.

1982It is a prime function of city police to be alert to things going wrong in the streets; if they were to be denied the right of such summary inquiry, a normal power and a necessary duty would be closed off.” (People v Rivera, supra, at pp 444, 445 .) “[T]he legal theory of Rivera on the initial general right of police inquiry on the streets was approved in the note to Chief Justice Warren’s opinion in Terry v. Ohio ( 392 U. S. 1, 11, n. 5 ).” (People v Rosemond, 26 NY2d 101, 104 ; see, also, People v Peters, 18 NY2d 238, 242 .) It seems abundantly clear that Officers Stahl and Dillon had an obj

1975It is a prime function of city police to be alert to things going wrong in the streets; if they were to be denied the right of such summary inquiry, a normal power and a necessary duty would be closed off” (see, also, People v Peters, 18 NY2d 238, 242-243 , affd sub nom Sibron v New York, 392 US 40 ).