light principle in New York

1970Portnoy v. Strasser, supra, 303 N. Y. 539, 542 .) In the light of that principle, we find no basis for denying custody of the child to petitioner, its natural parent, who did not abandon it and against whom no showing of present unfitness has been made.

1970Portnoy v. Strasser, supra, 303 N. Y. 539, 542 .) In the light of that principle, we find no basis for denying custody of the child to petitioner, its natural parent, who did not abandon it and against whom no showing of present unfitness has been made.

1962Portnoy v. Strasser, supra, 303 N. Y. 539, 542 .) In the light of that principle, we find no basis for denying custody of the child to petitioner, its natural parent, who did not abandon it and against whom no showing of present unfitness has been made. “ It has often been said that a child’s welfare is the first concern of the court upon a habeas corpus proceeding, where the judge acts ‘ as parens patrice to do what is best for the interest of the child.’ (Finlay v. Finlay, supra, 240 N. Y. 429, 433 ; see, also, People ex rel.

1962Portnoy v. Strasser, supra, 303 N. Y. 539, 542 .) In the light of that principle, we find no basis for denying custody of the child to petitioner, its natural parent, who did not abandon it and against whom no showing of present unfitness has been made. “ It has often been said that a child’s welfare is the first concern of the court upon a habeas corpus proceeding, where the judge acts ‘ as parens patrice to do what is best for the interest of the child.’ (Finlay v. Finlay, supra, 240 N. Y. 429, 433 ; see, also, People ex rel.

1969Viewing the facts most favorably to plaintiff (Commissio v. Meeker, 8 N Y 2d 109,117) and in the light of the rule of Noseworthy v. City of New York ( 298 N. Y. 76, 80 ), I am unable to find any proof in the record from which it may he inferred that this unfortunate accident was due to defendants’ negligence (cf. Wank v. Ambrosino, 307 N. Y. 321 ).

1967We have carefully reviewed the facts in the light of the rule of Noseworthy v. City of New York ( 298 N. Y. 76, 78 ) and assumed, as in a death case, this plaintiff is not held to the same degree of proof as one who is able to give his version of the occurrence.

1962Soc., 298 N. Y. 409, 423, 424 ); and (2) that one who maintains an explosive substance is properly bound to the exercise of a high degree of care (Travell v. Bannerman, 174 N. Y. 47, 51 ).

1962Soc., 298 N. Y. 409 ; 423, 424); and (2) that one who maintains an explosive substance is properly bound to the exercise of a high degree of care (Travell v. Bannerman, 174 N. Y. 47, 51 ).

1962The highest care of the law is personal liberty, and construing the statute in the light of that principle, we think that the respondent was without jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding or to require the attendance of witnesses, because sufficient proof was not laid before him.’ (Emphasis supplied.) As long ago as 1875, it was said in Mowry v. Sanborn ( 65 N. Y. 581, 584 ): ‘ “It may, as a general rule, be safely affirmed that, in the sense of the law, a general assertion of a fact in an affidavit upon information and belief proves nothing. * * * The commonest process in our courts designe

1958The highest care of the law is personal liberty, and construing the statute in the light of that principle, We think that the respondent was Without jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding Or to require the attendance Of witnesses, because sufficient proof was not laid before him.” (Emphasis supplied.) As long ago as 1875, it was said in Mowry v. Sanborn ( 65 N. Y. 581, 584 ) : “ ‘ It may, as a general rule, be safely affirmed that, in the sense qf the law, a general assertion of a fact in an affidavit upon information and belief proyes nothing. * * * The commonest pr-qqess in, our courts des

1935We must consider the facts disclosed by the record in the light of the rule applied in McCaffrey v. State of New York ( 259 N. Y. 159 ) and Hannan v. State of New York (264 id. 429).

1935We must consider the facts disclosed by the record in the light of the rule applied in McCaffrey v. State of New York ( 259 N. Y. 159 ) and Hannan v. State of New York (264 id. 429).

2021Plaintiffs' complaint therefore amounts to little more than the claim that that the film unreasonably placed them in a false light while presenting an account of newsworthy matters with healthy dollops of fiction, but neither a false light claim nor any other common-law privacy tort exists in New York ( see Messenger v Gruner + Jahr Print. & Publ. 94 NY2d at 448 ; Howell v New York Post Co. , 81 NY2d 115, 123 [1993]).

2011(People v McDonald, 296 AD2d 13, 20 [3d Dept 2002], affd 1 NY3d 109 [2003].) Because “[preserving the client’s right to remain in the United States may be more important to the client than any potential jail sentence” (Padilla v Kentucky, 559 US at —, 130 S Ct at 1483 , quoting INS v St.

2011(Roe v Flores-Ortega, 528 US at 480 .) In assessing Strickland prejudice on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based upon failure to advise a defendant of the immigration consequences of a guilty plea, the court must examine the claim not only in the light of factors such as the strength of the prosecution’s evidence, the availability of defenses, the likelihood of a conviction were the defendant to proceed to trial, defense counsel’s advice on the plea offer, and a comparison of the promised sentence after a guilty plea with the potential exposure upon a guilty verdict.

2011(People v McDonald, 296 AD2d 13, 20 [3d Dept 2002], affd 1 NY3d 109 [2003].) Because “[preserving the client’s right to remain in the United States may be more important to the client than any potential jail sentence” (Padilla v Kentucky, 559 US at —, 130 S Ct at 1483 , quoting INS v St.

2001The record, viewed as a whole and in the light of the presumption of regularity afforded to judicial proceedings (see, People v Dominique, 90 NY2d 880 ), fails to support defendant’s claim that he was not served with a copy of the predicate felony statement at least two days prior to his arraignment on such statement.

1998Viewed in the light of the presumption of regularity, the record reveals that defendant was properly sentenced on the basis of a sufficiently updated probation report (People- v Martinez, 237 AD2d 122 , lv denied 90 NY2d 860 ; People v Pagan, 172 AD2d 233 , lv denied 78 NY2d 925 ).

1998Viewed in the light of the presumption of regularity, the record reveals that defendant was properly sentenced on the basis of a sufficiently updated probation report (People- v Martinez, 237 AD2d 122 , lv denied 90 NY2d 860 ; People v Pagan, 172 AD2d 233 , lv denied 78 NY2d 925 ).

1993We note that the Commissioner may not, as a matter of law, direct the County Commissioner of Hospitals to appoint Doe to "the next available” pharmacy position, because the SDHR may not usurp an appointing official’s power to fill civil service posts (see, City of Schenectady v State Div. of Human Rights, 37 NY2d 421 ; Matter of New York State Dept. of Mental Hygiene v State Div. of Human Rights, 103 AD2d 546 , affd 66 NY2d 752 ; State Div. of Human Rights v Human Rights Commn., 79 AD2d 181 ; State Div. of Human Rights v County of Oswego, 62 AD2d 1151 ).

1993We note that the Commissioner may not, as a matter of law, direct the County Commissioner of Hospitals to appoint Doe to "the next available” pharmacy position, because the SDHR may not usurp an appointing official’s power to fill civil service posts (see, City of Schenectady v State Div. of Human Rights, 37 NY2d 421 ; Matter of New York State Dept. of Mental Hygiene v State Div. of Human Rights, 103 AD2d 546 , affd 66 NY2d 752 ; State Div. of Human Rights v Human Rights Commn., 79 AD2d 181 ; State Div. of Human Rights v County of Oswego, 62 AD2d 1151 ).

1993We note that the Commissioner may not, as a matter of law, direct the County Commissioner of Hospitals to appoint Doe to "the next available” pharmacy position, because the SDHR may not usurp an appointing official’s power to fill civil service posts (see, City of Schenectady v State Div. of Human Rights, 37 NY2d 421 ; Matter of New York State Dept. of Mental Hygiene v State Div. of Human Rights, 103 AD2d 546 , affd 66 NY2d 752 ; State Div. of Human Rights v Human Rights Commn., 79 AD2d 181 ; State Div. of Human Rights v County of Oswego, 62 AD2d 1151 ).

1993We note that the Commissioner may not, as a matter of law, direct the County Commissioner of Hospitals to appoint Doe to "the next available” pharmacy position, because the SDHR may not usurp an appointing official’s power to fill civil service posts (see, City of Schenectady v State Div. of Human Rights, 37 NY2d 421 ; Matter of New York State Dept. of Mental Hygiene v State Div. of Human Rights, 103 AD2d 546 , affd 66 NY2d 752 ; State Div. of Human Rights v Human Rights Commn., 79 AD2d 181 ; State Div. of Human Rights v County of Oswego, 62 AD2d 1151 ).

1993We direct that, on remittitur, the Commissioner’s surrogate reassess the evidence in the light of the factors which the United State Supreme Court ruled were deserving of consideration in School Bd. v Arline ( 480 US 273 ).

1993We note that the Commissioner may not, as a matter of law, direct the County Commissioner of Hospitals to appoint Doe to "the next available” pharmacy position, because the SDHR may not usurp an appointing official’s power to fill civil service posts (see, City of Schenectady v State Div. of Human Rights, 37 NY2d 421 ; Matter of New York State Dept. of Mental Hygiene v State Div. of Human Rights, 103 AD2d 546 , affd 66 NY2d 752 ; State Div. of Human Rights v Human Rights Commn., 79 AD2d 181 ; State Div. of Human Rights v County of Oswego, 62 AD2d 1151 ).

1991(See, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 398 .) Concur —Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Ross and Rubin, JJ.