denying challenge in New York

2026UK Ltd., 27 NY3d 933 [2016] [Denying defendant's motion to dismiss because the documentary evidence failed to "conclusively establis[h] a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law"].) Second, The language that defendants advance its argument upon fails to conclusively refute the amended complaint's allegations that (1) plaintiffs posts were similar to its own public statement about the Conflict and (2) Abramson's admission that no cause existed to justify its discipline and subsequent termination of his leadership positions- both of which are allegations that this Court must accept as

2021"An erroneous ruling by the court denying a challenge for cause by the defendant does not constitute reversible error unless the defendant has exhausted his [or her] peremptory challenges at the time or, if he [or she] has not, he [or she] peremptorily challenges such prospective juror and his [or her] peremptory challenges are exhausted before the selection of the jury is complete" ( id. § 270.20[2]).

2002An erroneous ruling by the court denying a challenge for cause by the defendant does not constitute reversible error unless the defendant has exhausted his peremptory challenges at the time or, if he has not, he peremptorily challenges such prospective juror and his peremptory challenges are exhausted before the selection of the jury is complete.” This statute is consistent with the law of a number of other states: State v Carmouche, 2002 WL 984306, *8 , 2002 La LEXIS 1520, *12 (La Sup Ct, May 14, 2002); State v Good, 309 Mont 113, 128 , 43 P3d 948, 960 (2002); Green v Maynard, 349 SC 535,542-

2002An erroneous ruling by the court denying a challenge for cause by the defendant does not constitute reversible error unless the defendant has exhausted his peremptory challenges at the time or, if he has not, he peremptorily challenges such prospective juror and his peremptory challenges are exhausted before the selection of the jury is complete.” This statute is consistent with the law of a number of other states: State v Carmouche, 2002 WL 984306, *8 , 2002 La LEXIS 1520, *12 (La Sup Ct, May 14, 2002); State v Good, 309 Mont 113, 128 , 43 P3d 948, 960 (2002); Green v Maynard, 349 SC 535,542-

2002An erroneous ruling by the court denying a challenge for cause by the defendant does not constitute reversible error unless the defendant has exhausted his peremptory challenges at the time or, if he has not, he peremptorily challenges such prospective juror and his peremptory challenges are exhausted before the selection of the jury is complete.” This statute is consistent with the law of a number of other states: State v Carmouche, 2002 WL 984306, *8 , 2002 La LEXIS 1520, *12 (La Sup Ct, May 14, 2002); State v Good, 309 Mont 113, 128 , 43 P3d 948, 960 (2002); Green v Maynard, 349 SC 535,542-

2002An erroneous ruling by the court denying a challenge for cause by the defendant does not constitute reversible error unless the defendant has exhausted his peremptory challenges at the time or, if he has not, he peremptorily challenges such prospective juror and his peremptory challenges are exhausted before the selection of the jury is complete.” This statute is consistent with the law of a number of other states: State v Carmouche, 2002 WL 984306, *8 , 2002 La LEXIS 1520, *12 (La Sup Ct, May 14, 2002); State v Good, 309 Mont 113, 128 , 43 P3d 948, 960 (2002); Green v Maynard, 349 SC 535,542-

2002An erroneous ruling by the court denying a challenge for cause by the defendant does not constitute reversible error unless the defendant has exhausted his peremptory challenges at the time or, if he has not, he peremptorily challenges such prospective juror and his peremptory challenges are exhausted before the selection of the jury is complete.” This statute is consistent with the law of a number of other states: State v Carmouche, 2002 WL 984306, *8 , 2002 La LEXIS 1520, *12 (La Sup Ct, May 14, 2002); State v Good, 309 Mont 113, 128 , 43 P3d 948, 960 (2002); Green v Maynard, 349 SC 535,542-

2002An erroneous ruling by the court denying a challenge for cause by the defendant does not constitute reversible error unless the defendant has exhausted his peremptory challenges at the time or, if he has not, he peremptorily challenges such prospective juror and his peremptory challenges are exhausted before the selection of the jury is complete.” This statute is consistent with the law of a number of other states: State v Carmouche, 2002 WL 984306, *8 , 2002 La LEXIS 1520, *12 (La Sup Ct, May 14, 2002); State v Good, 309 Mont 113, 128 , 43 P3d 948, 960 (2002); Green v Maynard, 349 SC 535,542-

2002An erroneous ruling by the court denying a challenge for cause by the defendant does not constitute reversible error unless the defendant has exhausted his peremptory challenges at the time or, if he has not, he peremptorily challenges such prospective juror and his peremptory challenges are exhausted before the selection of the jury is complete.” This statute is consistent with the law of a number of other states: State v Carmouche, 2002 WL 984306, *8 , 2002 La LEXIS 1520, *12 (La Sup Ct, May 14, 2002); State v Good, 309 Mont 113, 128 , 43 P3d 948, 960 (2002); Green v Maynard, 349 SC 535,542-

2002An erroneous ruling by the court denying a challenge for cause by the defendant does not constitute reversible error unless the defendant has exhausted his peremptory challenges at the time or, if he has not, he peremptorily challenges such prospective juror and his peremptory challenges are exhausted before the selection of the jury is complete.” This statute is consistent with the law of a number of other states: State v Carmouche, 2002 WL 984306, *8 , 2002 La LEXIS 1520, *12 (La Sup Ct, May 14, 2002); State v Good, 309 Mont 113, 128 , 43 P3d 948, 960 (2002); Green v Maynard, 349 SC 535,542-

2002An erroneous ruling by the court denying a challenge for cause by the defendant does not constitute reversible error unless the defendant has exhausted his peremptory challenges at the time or, if he has not, he peremptorily challenges such prospective juror and his peremptory challenges are exhausted before the selection of the jury is complete.” This statute is consistent with the law of a number of other states: State v Carmouche, 2002 WL 984306, *8 , 2002 La LEXIS 1520, *12 (La Sup Ct, May 14, 2002); State v Good, 309 Mont 113, 128 , 43 P3d 948, 960 (2002); Green v Maynard, 349 SC 535,542-

1992The defendant’s contention that the verdict sheet submitted to the jury was not proper is not preserved for appellate review since he failed to object to its submission (see, CPL 470.05; People v Mathis, 150 AD2d 613 ), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, People v Palumino, 172 AD2d 568 ).

1992The defendant’s contention that the verdict sheet submitted to the jury was not proper is not preserved for appellate review since he failed to object to its submission (see, CPL 470.05; People v Mathis, 150 AD2d 613 ), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, People v Palumino, 172 AD2d 568 ).

1986CPL 270.20 (2) provides, in part, that: "An erroneous ruling by the court denying a challenge for cause by the defendant does not constitute reversible error unless the defendant has exhausted his peremptory challenges at the time or, if he has not, he peremptorily challenges such prospective juror and his peremptory challenges are exhausted before the selection of the jury is complete.” Reversible error occurred due to the court’s denial of the challenge for cause according to CPL 270.20 (2), and the conviction must therefore be reversed (see, People v Foster, 100 AD2d 200 , mod on other grou

1986CPL 270.20 (2) provides, in part, that: "An erroneous ruling by the court denying a challenge for cause by the defendant does not constitute reversible error unless the defendant has exhausted his peremptory challenges at the time or, if he has not, he peremptorily challenges such prospective juror and his peremptory challenges are exhausted before the selection of the jury is complete.” Reversible error occurred due to the court’s denial of the challenge for cause according to CPL 270.20 (2), and the conviction must therefore be reversed (see, People v Foster, 100 AD2d 200 , mod on other grou

1986CPL 270.20 (2) provides, in part, that: "An erroneous ruling by the court denying a challenge for cause by the defendant does not constitute reversible error unless the defendant has exhausted his peremptory challenges at the time or, if he has not, he peremptorily challenges such prospective juror and his peremptory challenges are exhausted before the selection of the jury is complete.” Reversible error occurred due to the court’s denial of the challenge for cause according to CPL 270.20 (2), and the conviction must therefore be reversed (see, People v Foster, 100 AD2d 200 , mod on other grou

1984The theory of this rule — a codification of the common law (People v Culhane, 33 NY2d 90, 97 ) — is that it is necessary that the objectionable juror be forced upon the complaining party who could not be rid of the juror by the exercise of a peremptory challenge (Busch, Law and Tactics in Jury Trials, § 77).