emphasized claim in New York

2024Moreover, as articulated in Emil v. Dewey , 49 NY2d 968 (1980), the doctrine applies broadly to preclude litigation of issues stemming from the same operative facts, even when reframed under different legal theories or involving additional parties.

2024Moreover, as articulated in Emil v. Dewey , 49 NY2d 968 (1980), the doctrine applies broadly to preclude litigation of issues stemming from the same operative facts, even when reframed under different legal theories or involving additional parties.

2024Plaintiff and the City of New York reference Amcan Holdings, Inc. v. Torys LLP, 32 AD3d 337 (1st Dept 2006), where the court emphasized the principle that consolidation is inappropriate if it would result in confusion or prejudice due to differences in legal issues or evidence.

2000Similarly, in People v Bass ( 259 AD2d 419, 420 ), this Court emphasized that defense counsel had “specifically identified * * * defendant’s ‘common-law wife’, and noted her presence in the courtroom prior to the court’s ruling * * * Thus, the trial court was on express notice that the ruling would result in the exclusion of a family member who was actually present at the trial and whom defendant wished to have in the courtroom.” While the expressed desire that certain persons attend trial is sufficient to preserve for our review the propriety of closure in general, it does not preclude a find

2000Similarly, in People v Bass ( 259 AD2d 419, 420 ), this Court emphasized that defense counsel had “specifically identified * * * defendant’s ‘common-law wife’, and noted her presence in the courtroom prior to the court’s ruling * * * Thus, the trial court was on express notice that the ruling would result in the exclusion of a family member who was actually present at the trial and whom defendant wished to have in the courtroom.” While the expressed desire that certain persons attend trial is sufficient to preserve for our review the propriety of closure in general, it does not preclude a find

2000Similarly, in People v Bass ( 259 AD2d 419, 420 ), this Court emphasized that defense counsel had “specifically identified * * * defendant’s ‘common-law wife’, and noted her presence in the courtroom prior to the court’s ruling * * * Thus, the trial court was on express notice that the ruling would result in the exclusion of a family member who was actually present at the trial and whom defendant wished to have in the courtroom.” While the expressed desire that certain persons attend trial is sufficient to preserve for our review the propriety of closure in general, it does not preclude a find

2000Similarly, in People v Bass ( 259 AD2d 419, 420 ), this Court emphasized that defense counsel had “specifically identified * * * defendant’s ‘common-law wife’, and noted her presence in the courtroom prior to the court’s ruling * * * Thus, the trial court was on express notice that the ruling would result in the exclusion of a family member who was actually present at the trial and whom defendant wished to have in the courtroom.” While the expressed desire that certain persons attend trial is sufficient to preserve for our review the propriety of closure in general, it does not preclude a find

1997On rehearing in Ayala, the court emphasized the presumption of openness and that closure was to be no broader than necessary (see, 102 F3d 649 [2d Cir Dec. 11, 1996], supra).

1990In fact, the legislative history of section 15.20 is replete with references to the influence of the Model Penal Code provision” (People v Marrero, supra, at 388 ).

1970Apropos is the principle stated in Matter of Attorney-General of United States ( 160 Misc. 533, 537 ): “ Reasons which might well preclude an examination of such minutes by private individuals may well be abortive when raised against an inspection by public officials to enable them more efficiently to discharge the obligations of their office.” Thereby the court emphasized the test articulated in Hirschberg v. Board of Supervisors (supra, p. 170 ): “in all cases where justice or the rights of the public require it, the facts should be disclosed.” The instant criminal proceeding has been conclu

1970Apropos is the principle stated in Matter of Attorney-General of United States ( 160 Misc. 533, 537 ): “ Reasons which might well preclude an examination of such minutes by private individuals may well be abortive when raised against an inspection by public officials to enable them more efficiently to discharge the obligations of their office.” Thereby the court emphasized the test articulated in Hirschberg v. Board of Supervisors (supra, p. 170 ): “in all cases where justice or the rights of the public require it, the facts should be disclosed.” The instant criminal proceeding has been conclu

1909In the recent case of United States v. Delaioare & Hudson co. ( 213 U. S. 366 ), where the validity of the commodities clause of the Hepburn Act was questioned, the court emphasized the rule that where two constructions of an act of legislation are permissible; one of which may render it invalid or may lead to an honest dispute as to its validity, the court will adopt that construction which removés the validity of the statute from question.