severance doctrine in New York

1988This case is, however, a proper one in which to apply the doctrine of severance (People v Niemczycki, 67 AD2d 442 ; People v Mangialino, 75 Misc 2d 698 ; cf., People v Giordano, 72 AD2d 550 ).

1979That doctrine, discussed at length in People v Mangialino ( 75 Misc 2d 698 ), has been adopted and applied by the Court of Appeals in People v Hansen ( 38 NY2d 17 ).

1979That doctrine, discussed at length in People v Mangialino ( 75 Misc 2d 698 ), has been adopted and applied by the Court of Appeals in People v Hansen ( 38 NY2d 17 ).

1976By applying the doctrine of severance, we find that the search warrant was valid insofar as it authorized the search for marijuana (see People v Hansen, 38 NY2d 17 ).

2008Thus, the majority would insert new substantive provisions to which the parties did not agree (see Crippen v United Petroleum Feedstocks, 245 AD2d 152 [1997]). 5 Notably, plaintiff has not requested that we “sever” the agreements in this or any fashion, and neither plaintiff nor defendants have briefed this issue.

2007Assn. v County of Oneida, 78 AD2d 1004 [4th Dept 1980].) Based upon the severance clause in section 10, the legislative purposes, the existing powers of the Health Commissioner and the functionability of the Enabling Act in the absence of the legislative veto, the provision is severable from the remainder of the statute, and even if unconstitutional, will not nullify the remainder of the Enabling Act.

2007Viewing the amendment in the context of the entire agreement (see Zodiac Enters. v American Broadcasting Cos., 81 AD2d 337, 339 [1981], affd 56 NY2d 738 [1982]), the only reasonable interpretation of the severance clause is that the decedent was entitled to a severance payment only in the event he was alive and defendants terminated him for any reason other than for cause.

2007The evidence presented at the severance hearing established that defendant told the at tempted murder victim, who at the time was his girlfriend, that he previously committed the murder, and that statement was material and relevant on the issue of defendant’s motive and intent thereafter to attempt to kill her (see CPL 220.20 [2] [b]; People v Garcia, 126 AD2d 667 [1987], lv denied 69 NY2d 880 [1987]).

2001Indeed, other New York courts, relying on Hansen , have severed unconstitutionally overbroad directives like the one before us, upholding seizures under the remaining particularized portions (see, e.g., People v Conte, 159 AD2d 993, 994 [sustaining seizure of evidence particularized in warrant even though portion of warrant impermissibly authorized police to seize “other contraband”]; People v Niemczycki, 67 AD2d 442, 444 [sustaining seizure of particularized item even though warrant also authorized seizure of “any other contraband”]; People v Haas, 55 AD2d 683 [severing portion of warrant aut

1998Inasmuch as the abuse and neglect proceeding against respondents clearly presented common questions of fact (see, Matter of Amy M., 234 AD2d 854, 855 ) and no prejudice can be discerned from Family Court conducting one hearing (see, CPLR 603), severance would have been inappropriate.

1988This case is, however, a proper one in which to apply the doctrine of severance (People v Niemczycki, 67 AD2d 442 ; People v Mangialino, 75 Misc 2d 698 ; cf., People v Giordano, 72 AD2d 550 ).

1976(See Huttick v Bio-graph Realty Corp., 37 AD2d 597 .) Since the court has the power to vacate a previously granted severance when convenience and the avoidance of prejudice mandate, this error can be nullified by vacating the prior severance of the claim of Herman against Modular and by the restoration of Modular Steel as a fourth-party defendant.