litmus test in New York

2015Rather, we conclude that the appropriate litmus test here is whether the motion at issue had more than little or no chance of success and, if so, whether there is no strategic or other legitimate explanation for the failure to bring that motion (see Caban, 5 NY3d at 152 ; Rivera, 71 NY2d at 709 ; cf. People v Clermont, 22 NY3d 931, 934 [2013]; People v McGee, 20 NY3d 513, 520 [2013]; see generally People v Carnevale, 101 AD3d 1375, 1380-1381 [2012]).

2015Rather, we conclude that the appropriate litmus test here is whether the motion at issue had more than little or no chance of success and, if so, whether there is no strategic or other legitimate explanation for the failure to bring that motion (see Caban, 5 NY3d at 152 ; Rivera, 71 NY2d at 709 ; cf. People v Clermont, 22 NY3d 931, 934 [2013]; People v McGee, 20 NY3d 513, 520 [2013]; see generally People v Carnevale, 101 AD3d 1375, 1380-1381 [2012]).

2015Rather, we conclude that the appropriate litmus test here is whether the motion at issue had more than little or no chance of success and, if so, whether there is no strategic or other legitimate explanation for the failure to bring that motion (see Caban, 5 NY3d at 152 ; Rivera, 71 NY2d at 709 ; cf. People v Clermont, 22 NY3d 931, 934 [2013]; People v McGee, 20 NY3d 513, 520 [2013]; see generally People v Carnevale, 101 AD3d 1375, 1380-1381 [2012]).

2015Rather, we conclude that the appropriate litmus test here is whether the motion at issue had more than little or no chance of success and, if so, whether there is no strategic or other legitimate explanation for the failure to bring that motion (see Caban, 5 NY3d at 152 ; Rivera, 71 NY2d at 709 ; cf. People v Clermont, 22 NY3d 931, 934 [2013]; People v McGee, 20 NY3d 513, 520 [2013]; see generally People v Carnevale, 101 AD3d 1375, 1380-1381 [2012]).

2023Freycinet’s consideration of “whether the contents of the report are a contemporaneous record of objective facts” also fails under Supreme Court scrutiny ( 11 NY3d at 42 ).

1999This Court has repeatedly upheld legislation which has an initial effect on only one municipality so long as the statute, on its face (with the formidable presumption of constitutionality also going for it), is general enough that application to other municipalities is real and available prospectively ( see, Matter of McAneny v Board of Estimate & Apportionment, 232 NY 377, 392-393 ; see also, Hotel Dorset Co. v Trust for Cultural Resources, supra, at 373).

1999This Court has repeatedly upheld legislation which has an initial effect on only one municipality so long as the statute, on its face (with the formidable presumption of constitutionality also going for it), is general enough that application to other municipalities is real and available prospectively (see, Matter of McAneny v Board of Estimate & Apportionment, 232 NY 377, 392-393 ; see also, Hotel Dorset Co. v Trust for Cultural Resources, supra, at 373).

1994The appropriate inquiry is whether "the evidence, the law and the circumstances of a particular case, viewed together and as of the time of the representation, reveal that meaningful representation was provided” (People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796, 798-799 ; see also, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 ).

1994Courts have frequently stated that it is "impossible to formulate a litmus test for 'inadequate’ or 'ineffective’ legal representation” (People v Ellis, 81 NY2d 854, 856 ).

1993It is therefore impossible to formulate a litmus test for "inadequate” or "ineffective” legal representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146 ; People v Droz, 39 NY2d 457, 462 ).

1989Failure to perceive a substantial and unjustified risk of death inherent in one’s acts is the litmus test of criminally negligent homicide. "[Cjriminal liability cannot be predicated upon every careless act * * * 'unless "the significance of the circumstances of fact would be apparent to one who shares the community’s general sense of right and wrong” ’ ” (People v Haney, supra, at 335 , quoting Model Penal Code, Tent Draft No. 9 § 201.4, at 53 [May 8, 1959]).

1988"The litmus test for determining the right to a jury trial is whether the nature of the legal issues to be tried is 'legal’ or 'equitable.’ A jury trial may be demanded if the nature of the issues is legal regardless of whether or not the legal issues are intertwined with other equitable issues.” (Pollack v Castrovinci, 476 F Supp 606, 608 , affd 622 F2d 575 [2d Cir].) Pollack (supra) also examined the legislative history of ERISA, which made clear that it should be construed consistent with the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947 (the LMRA).

1988"The litmus test for determining the right to a jury trial is whether the nature of the legal issues to be tried is 'legal’ or 'equitable.’ A jury trial may be demanded if the nature of the issues is legal regardless of whether or not the legal issues are intertwined with other equitable issues.” (Pollack v Castrovinci, 476 F Supp 606, 608 , affd 622 F2d 575 [2d Cir].) Pollack (supra) also examined the legislative history of ERISA, which made clear that it should be construed consistent with the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947 (the LMRA).

1984(De Camp v Good Samaritan Hosp., 66 AD2d 766 .) The test seeks to insure not only that a biased Judge will not participate injudicial proceedings, but also that no reasonable person, party to the proceedings or not, will suspect the existence of partiality.