Rivera defendant in New York

2024Thus, while it was appropriate to impeach the Rivera defendant with the attorney's affidavit, he was not precluded from presenting his inconsistent testimony. ( People v Brown , 98 NY2d at 232 n 2.) With respect to the Brown defendant in People v Brown , the Court held that he was bound by his attorney's prior inconsistent statement made at a Sandoval hearing, which could be used to impeach him: The facts in Brown fall comfortably within the Rivera holding.

2024Thus, while it was appropriate to impeach the Rivera defendant with the attorney's affidavit, he was not precluded from presenting his inconsistent testimony. ( People v Brown , 98 NY2d at 232 n 2.) With respect to the Brown defendant in People v Brown , the Court held that he was bound by his attorney's prior inconsistent statement made at a Sandoval hearing, which could be used to impeach him: The facts in Brown fall comfortably within the Rivera holding.

2022Adm'r , 29 AD3d 869, 871 ), here, the Rivera defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them to the extent of dismissing all claims for medical malpractice arising from care prior to July 21, 2014, by relying on a referral to Goldenberg, a specialist, for the plaintiff's reported gastrointestinal issues and directing her to return to Goldenberg when she reported further symptoms ( see Ellis v Eng , 70 AD3d 887, 892-893 ).

2022Adm'r , 29 AD3d 869, 871 ), here, the Rivera defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them to the extent of dismissing all claims for medical malpractice arising from care prior to July 21, 2014, by relying on a referral to Goldenberg, a specialist, for the plaintiff's reported gastrointestinal issues and directing her to return to Goldenberg when she reported further symptoms ( see Ellis v Eng , 70 AD3d 887, 892-893 ).

2007Since plaintiff offered no competent evidence of Rivera’s negligence for the occurrence of the accident, summary judgment should have been granted, dismissing the complaint against that defendant (see Murchison v Incognoli, 5 AD3d 271 [2004]).

2002Thus, while it was appropriate to impeach the Rivera defendant with the attorney's affidavit, he was not precluded from presenting his inconsistent testimony. [3] Burgos-Santos failed to preserve for this Court's review his constitutional arguments concerning the notice of alibi. [*] People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 (1974).

2001Corp., 235 AD2d 381 ) and, as such, Shelton is entitled to summary judgment (Mitchell v Gonzalez, 269 AD2d 250 ; Diller v City of N. Y.

2001Corp., 235 AD2d 381 ) and, as such, Shelton is entitled to summary judgment (Mitchell v Gonzalez, 269 AD2d 250 ; Diller v City of N. Y.

1994Review of the record submitted by defendant does not sustain his claim that codefendant Rivera’s plea agreement, pursuant to which he was to receive a reduced sentence in exchange for his testimony at trial, was concealed from defendant (People v Charleston, 54 NY2d 622 ).

1994Moreover, the record establishes that the jury learned of the likelihood that Rivera would receive favorable treatment in exchange for his testimony from codefendant Torres’ cross examination (see, People v Novoa, 70 NY2d 490 ).

1988(People v Stumpp, 129 Misc 2d 703, 704 [Dist Ct, Suffolk County 1985], affd 132 Misc 2d 3 [App Term, 2d Dept 1986].) Although inartfully drafted, the instant complaint sufficiently alleges a factual basis for establishing the charge of obstructing governmental administration, i.e., defendants’ physical interference with a police officer’s performance of an official function, and commission of an independently unlawful act, by stating that "defendants * * * with intent to prevent deponent, a Police Officer, from performing his lawful duty * * * did fight with deponent, jumping on his back and c

1969The Rivera rule permitting discovery of all persons at the scene of the accident was followed in Sanfilipo v. Baptist Temple ( 52 Misc 2d 767 ) and approved in Dickinson v. Chock Full 0’ Nuts (supra) and Maffeo v. Comtois (supra).

1969The Rivera rule permitting discovery of all persons at the scene of the accident was followed in Sanfilipo v. Baptist Temple ( 52 Misc 2d 767 ) and approved in Dickinson v. Chock Full 0’ Nuts (supra) and Maffeo v. Comtois (supra).

1969The Rivera rule permitting discovery of all persons at the scene of the accident was followed in Sanfilipo v. Baptist Temple ( 52 Misc 2d 767 ) and approved in Dickinson v. Chock Full 0’ Nuts (supra) and Maffeo v. Comtois (supra).

1969The Rivera rule permitting discovery of all persons at the scene of the accident was followed in Sanfilipo v. Baptist Temple ( 52 Misc 2d 767 ) and approved in Dickinson v. Chock Full 0’ Nuts (supra) and Maffeo v. Comtois (supra).

1969The Rivera rule permitting discovery of all persons at the scene of the accident was followed in Sanfilipo v. Baptist Temple ( 52 Misc 2d 767 ) and approved in Dickinson v. Chock Full 0’ Nuts (supra) and Maffeo v. Comtois (supra).

1969The Rivera rule permitting discovery of all persons at the scene of the accident was followed in Sanfilipo v. Baptist Temple ( 52 Misc 2d 767 ) and approved in Dickinson v. Chock Full 0’ Nuts (supra) and Maffeo v. Comtois (supra).