special circumstances test in New York

2021Whether the procedural rule imposed by the Appellate Term is consistent with the Criminal Procedure Law and this Court’s precedent is a question of law appealable and reviewable by this Court (see Giles, 73 NY2d at 671 ; Douglass, 60 NY2d at 205).

2002However, we need not decide that issue since, in any event, under the circumstances of this case the presentment agency met the special circumstances test for successive motions to adjourn a fact-finding hearing (see Matter of Nakia L., 81 NY2d 898, 901 ).

1995The special circumstances requirement of CPLR 3101 (d) does not apply to an expert who is an employee of a party (see, Maser v County of Onondaga, 90 AD2d 970 , lv dismissed 58 NY2d 1047 ).

1995The special circumstances requirement of CPLR 3101 (d) does not apply to an expert who is an employee of a party (see, Maser v County of Onondaga, 90 AD2d 970 , lv dismissed 58 NY2d 1047 ).

1994One of the factors which must be considered in a case of this nature is whether, and to what extent, there exists a real difference in quality between the education furnished by the public schools, on the one hand, and that which is available at the private school which the child in question attends or plans to attend, on the other (see, e.g., Matter of Rucks v Nugent, 191 AD2d 786 ; Matter of Ladner v Iarussi, 92 AD2d 895; Gartin v Gartin, 64 AD2d 600 ; cf., Valente v Valente, 114 AD2d 951 ; Kaplan v Wallshein, 57 AD2d 828 ).

1994One of the factors which must be considered in a case of this nature is whether, and to what extent, there exists a real difference in quality between the education furnished by the public schools, on the one hand, and that which is available at the private school which the child in question attends or plans to attend, on the other (see, e.g., Matter of Rucks v Nugent, 191 AD2d 786 ; Matter of Ladner v Iarussi, 92 AD2d 895; Gartin v Gartin, 64 AD2d 600 ; cf., Valente v Valente, 114 AD2d 951 ; Kaplan v Wallshein, 57 AD2d 828 ).

1994One of the factors which must be considered in a case of this nature is whether, and to what extent, there exists a real difference in quality between the education furnished by the public schools, on the one hand, and that which is available at the private school which the child in question attends or plans to attend, on the other (see, e.g., Matter of Rucks v Nugent, 191 AD2d 786 ; Matter of Ladner v Iarussi, 92 AD2d 895; Gartin v Gartin, 64 AD2d 600 ; cf., Valente v Valente, 114 AD2d 951 ; Kaplan v Wallshein, 57 AD2d 828 ).

1994One of the factors which must be considered in a case of this nature is whether, and to what extent, there exists a real difference in quality between the education furnished by the public schools, on the one hand, and that which is available at the private school which the child in question attends or plans to attend, on the other (see, e.g., Matter of Rucks v Nugent, 191 AD2d 786 ; Matter of Ladner v Iarussi, 92 AD2d 895; Gartin v Gartin, 64 AD2d 600 ; cf., Valente v Valente, 114 AD2d 951 ; Kaplan v Wallshein, 57 AD2d 828 ).

1994Although the special circumstances test has been replaced, there must nevertheless be a balancing of several factors, including but not limited to those which were essential to the traditional "special circumstances” test (see, e.g., Hirsch v Hirsch, 142 AD2d 138 ).

1994One of the factors which must be considered in a case of this nature is whether, and to what extent, there exists a real difference in quality between the education furnished by the public schools, on the one hand, and that which is available at the private school which the child in question attends or plans to attend, on the other (see, e.g., Matter of Rucks v Nugent, 191 AD2d 786 ; Matter of Ladner v Iarussi, 92 AD2d 895; Gartin v Gartin, 64 AD2d 600 ; cf., Valente v Valente, 114 AD2d 951 ; Kaplan v Wallshein, 57 AD2d 828 ).

1992Co.) ( 56 NY2d 264 ) is inapplicable.

1989For this reason, it has been suggested that disclosure from an expert should be virtually as available now as it was from a nonparty witness before the amendments (see, Siegel, Supp Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, 1989 Supp Pamph, CPLR C3101:29, at 16)—which is to say that it should be available practically for the asking (see, Villano v Conde Nast Publs., 46 AD2d 118, 120 [1st Dept]; Slabakis v Drizin, 107 AD2d 45 [1st Dept]; Wiseman v American Motors Sales Corp., 103 AD2d 230, 240 [2d Dept] [all four Appellate Divisions have adopted the view that the special circu

1985As a result, under the special circumstances standard as enunciated in Connolly (supra), this court may proceed to determine whether or not the Hoffman children possess sufficient academic ability to succeed in college.

1982(See Frankel v Frankel, 82 AD2d 796 ; Weseley v Weseley, 58 AD2d 829 ; Matter of Thaler v Klein, 55 AD2d 606 ; Matter of Weymann v Weymann, 51 AD2d 768 ; Hahn v Hahn, 40 AD2d 624, 625 .)” It is clear that Special Term erred in its view that it was without power to direct contribution by the defendant father to make college expense payments as it had such power under the special circumstances test enunciated above, guided at all times by what is in the child’s best interest.

1982(See Frankel v Frankel, 82 AD2d 796 ; Weseley v Weseley, 58 AD2d 829 ; Matter of Thaler v Klein, 55 AD2d 606 ; Matter of Weymann v Weymann, 51 AD2d 768 ; Hahn v Hahn, 40 AD2d 624, 625 .)” It is clear that Special Term erred in its view that it was without power to direct contribution by the defendant father to make college expense payments as it had such power under the special circumstances test enunciated above, guided at all times by what is in the child’s best interest.

1982(See Frankel v Frankel, 82 AD2d 796 ; Weseley v Weseley, 58 AD2d 829 ; Matter of Thaler v Klein, 55 AD2d 606 ; Matter of Weymann v Weymann, 51 AD2d 768 ; Hahn v Hahn, 40 AD2d 624, 625 .)” It is clear that Special Term erred in its view that it was without power to direct contribution by the defendant father to make college expense payments as it had such power under the special circumstances test enunciated above, guided at all times by what is in the child’s best interest.

1982(See Frankel v Frankel, 82 AD2d 796 ; Weseley v Weseley, 58 AD2d 829 ; Matter of Thaler v Klein, 55 AD2d 606 ; Matter of Weymann v Weymann, 51 AD2d 768 ; Hahn v Hahn, 40 AD2d 624, 625 .)” It is clear that Special Term erred in its view that it was without power to direct contribution by the defendant father to make college expense payments as it had such power under the special circumstances test enunciated above, guided at all times by what is in the child’s best interest.

1982(See Frankel v Frankel, 82 AD2d 796 ; Weseley v Weseley, 58 AD2d 829 ; Matter of Thaler v Klein, 55 AD2d 606 ; Matter of Weymann v Weymann, 51 AD2d 768 ; Hahn v Hahn, 40 AD2d 624, 625 .)” It is clear that Special Term erred in its view that it was without power to direct contribution by the defendant father to make college expense payments as it had such power under the special circumstances test enunciated above, guided at all times by what is in the child’s best interest.

1978Appellate determinations in other departments have also evinced a more favorable attitude toward liberalization of disclosure in paternity proceedings (see Matter of Margaret B. v Gilbert W., 51 AD2d 456 [1st Dept]; Matter of Arlene W. v Robert D., 36 AD2d 455 [4th Dept]).

1978Appellate determinations in other departments have also evinced a more favorable attitude toward liberalization of disclosure in paternity proceedings (see Matter of Margaret B. v Gilbert W., 51 AD2d 456 [1st Dept]; Matter of Arlene W. v Robert D., 36 AD2d 455 [4th Dept]).

1978Although this court recently affirmed the denial of a pretrial examination for want of special circumstances in Matter of D’Elia v Philip C. ( 57 AD2d 836 ), it should be noted that the special circumstances rule was not there challenged by the respondent, as it is at bar.

1978With the special circumstances rule either being ignored or accorded mere lip service, the pretrial examination is now simply viewed as enabling the parties to better prepare for trial and thereby expediting the proceeding and advancing the search for truth (see, e.g., Matter of Lascaris v Hyatt, 84 Misc 2d 68 ; Matter of Linnie B. v Lonnie H, 65 Misc 2d 754 ).

1978With the special circumstances rule either being ignored or accorded mere lip service, the pretrial examination is now simply viewed as enabling the parties to better prepare for trial and thereby expediting the proceeding and advancing the search for truth (see, e.g., Matter of Lascaris v Hyatt, 84 Misc 2d 68 ; Matter of Linnie B. v Lonnie H, 65 Misc 2d 754 ).

1949Bartlett v. Sanford, 244 App. Div. 722 , 278 N. Y.

1930There we have the same attempt to suppress testimony as referred to by Judge Ingraham in Automobile Club of America v. Canavan ( 128 App. Div. 426 ), bringing the case under the special circumstances clause of the Civil Practice Act.