four-pronged test in New York

1995In determining whether closure of the courtroom is necessary, the Court of Appeals has set forth a four-pronged test: "(1) the party seeking to close the hearing must advance an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced; (2) the closure must be no broader than necessary to protect that interest; (3) the trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding; and (4) the trial court must make findings adequate to support the closure” (People v Kin Kan, 78 NY2d 54, 58 ; Waller v Georgia, 467 US 39, 48 ; People v Martinez, 82 NY2d 436, 442 ).

1993Since Jones , also, the United States Supreme Court has further particularized the standard for closure, under the Sixth Amendment, which we recognized in People v Kin Kan ( 78 NY2d 54, 58 ) as a four-pronged test: "[1] the party seeking to close the hearing must advance an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced, [2] the closure must be no broader than necessary to protect that interest, [3] the trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding, and [4] it must make findings adequate to support the closure” (Waller v Georgia, 467 US 39, 48 , supra).

1995The Complete Auto articulation of the four-pronged standard for determining the validity of a State tax on interstate commercial activity under the dormant Commerce Clause remains the prevailing test, with refinements, to this day (see, Oklahoma Tax Commn. v Jefferson Lines, 514 US, at —, 115 S Ct, at 1337 , supra).

1995The Complete Auto articulation of the four-pronged standard for determining the validity of a State tax on interstate commercial activity under the dormant Commerce Clause remains the prevailing test, with refinements, to this day (see , Oklahoma Tax Commn. v Jefferson Lines , 514 US, at ___ , 115 S Ct, at 1337 , supra) .

1995One such refinement of Complete Auto was made at the same term in National Geographic v California Equalization Bd. ( 430 US 551 ).

1995One such refinement of Complete Auto was made at the *174 same term in National Geographic v California Equalization Bd. ( 430 US 551 ).

1995Further, once the defendant seeks the inclusion of members of his family, the People must prove that the individuals’ exclusion is necessary to protect the witness (People v Kin Kan, supra, at 58-59; People v Bess, 220 AD2d 603, 604 ).

1995In determining whether closure of the courtroom is necessary, the Court of Appeals has set forth a four-pronged test: "(1) the party seeking to close the hearing must advance an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced; (2) the closure must be no broader than necessary to protect that interest; (3) the trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding; and (4) the trial court must make findings adequate to support the closure” (People v Kin Kan, 78 NY2d 54, 58 ; Waller v Georgia, 467 US 39, 48 ; People v Martinez, 82 NY2d 436, 442 ).

1992The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, held in the case of People v Dillenbeck ( 115 AD2d 331, 331-332 ): "In order for a statement to be admitted as past recollection recorded, four requirements must be met: (1) the witness must be unable or unwilling to testify to the events contained in the memorandum; (2) the witness must have observed the events described therein; (3) the memorandum must have been pre pared when knowledge of the contents were fresh in the mind of the witness; (4) the witness must have intended the memorandum to be accurate at the time it was made (People v Raja, 77 AD

1992The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, held in the case of People v Dillenbeck ( 115 AD2d 331, 331-332 ): "In order for a statement to be admitted as past recollection recorded, four requirements must be met: (1) the witness must be unable or unwilling to testify to the events contained in the memorandum; (2) the witness must have observed the events described therein; (3) the memorandum must have been pre pared when knowledge of the contents were fresh in the mind of the witness; (4) the witness must have intended the memorandum to be accurate at the time it was made (People v Raja, 77 AD

1989Applying the four-pronged test set forth in Matter of Douglas-ton Civic Assn. v Galvin ( 36 NY2d 1, 7 ), we agree that there was insufficient information provided to determine whether the association was fairly representative of the Town of Woodstock community. * Turning to the merits, we reverse that part of Supreme Court’s judgment which remitted the matter to the Planning Board and otherwise affirm.

1986Again my model is Chief Judge Wachtler in the Arcara case ( 65 NY2d 324 , 335-336, supra) who, in turn, adopted the four-pronged test in United States v O’Brien ( 391 US 367, 377 ).

1979Co., 244 NY 331, 338 , supra.) This four-pronged test was reaffirmed in White v Guarente ( 43 NY2d 356 ) and the Fourth Department recently held that the failure to show a special relationship of trust is fatal to an action for negligent misrepresentation (Everson v First Trust & Deposit Co., 46 AD2d 722 ).

1979Co., 244 NY 331, 338 , supra.) This four-pronged test was reaffirmed in White v Guarente ( 43 NY2d 356 ) and the Fourth Department recently held that the failure to show a special relationship of trust is fatal to an action for negligent misrepresentation (Everson v First Trust & Deposit Co., 46 AD2d 722 ).

1979Co., 244 NY 331, 338 , supra.) This four-pronged test was reaffirmed in White v Guarente ( 43 NY2d 356 ) and the Fourth Department recently held that the failure to show a special relationship of trust is fatal to an action for negligent misrepresentation (Everson v First Trust & Deposit Co., 46 AD2d 722 ).

1974Miranda v. Arizona (supra) defined custodial interrogation to mean (p. 444) “questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or ¡otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way”.