facts presented hearing in New York

2024The People have the burden at a suppression hearing of showing the legality of the police conduct in the first instance ( see People v Baldwin , 25 NY2d 66, 70 [1969]; People v Ponce , 203 AD3d 1628 [4th Dept 2022]).

2018People v James , 155 AD3d 1094 , 1096 [2017]; People v Ogden , 250 AD2d 1001 , 1001 [1998]).

2018People v James , 155 AD3d 1094 , 1096 [2017]; People v Ogden , 250 AD2d 1001 , 1001 [1998]).

2006Under the facts presented at the hearing, the defendant set forth sufficient grounds for the assignment of counsel (see Judiciary Law § 770; Holmes v Holmes, 89 AD2d 921 [1982]; see also Family Ct Act § 262 [a] [vi]; Matter of Dell v Dell, 135 AD2d 475 [1987]).

2006Under the facts presented at the hearing, the defendant set forth sufficient grounds for the assignment of counsel (see Judiciary Law § 770; Holmes v Holmes, 89 AD2d 921 [1982]; see also Family Ct Act § 262 [a] [vi]; Matter of Dell v Dell, 135 AD2d 475 [1987]).

2006The Supreme Court properly determined that the arbitrator’s award was not made in manifest disregard of the law or the facts presented at the hearing (see Matter of Bart v Miller, 302 AD2d 379, 380 [2003]; Credit Suisse First Boston Corp. v Crisanti, 289 AD2d 83 [2001]).

2004Since the defense of necessity is not an affirmative defense wherein the defendant has the burden of establishing that defense by a preponderance of the evidence, it has been uniformly accepted by courts in New York that a defendant is obliged to put in “some evidence of his defense unless the prosecution does so in presenting its side.” (Gray at 855 .) Thus, as in People v Gray ( 150 Misc 2d 852 [1991] [a case involving bicycles, pedestrians and pollution on the Queensboro Bridge]), the facts presented by the defense here clearly distinguish the instant case from those situations where the co

2004Since the defense of necessity is not an affirmative defense wherein the defendant has the burden of establishing that defense by a preponderance of the evidence, it has been uniformly accepted by courts in New York that a defendant is obliged to put in “some evidence of his defense unless the prosecution does so in presenting its side.” (Gray at 855 .) Thus, as in People v Gray ( 150 Misc 2d 852 [1991] [a case involving bicycles, pedestrians and pollution on the Queensboro Bridge]), the facts presented by the defense here clearly distinguish the instant case from those situations where the co

1985Although a landowner owes a single duty of reasonable care, and foreseeability is the measure of liability (see, Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233, 241 ), it is clear under the facts presented at bar that the direct cause of plaintiff’s injuries was the dive that he executed in water which was far too shallow for that type of dive.

1979That portion of a divorce action which fixes the obligations of the parties, whether by incorporation of a separation agreement or otherwise, is a proceeding in personam. ( Renaudin, supra.) Therefore insofar as plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment seeks to incorporate the separation agreement in a judgment for divorce this court lacks personal jurisdiction over defendant.

1968In addition, while the court, on this hearing, has permitted reference to complainant’s identification of the defendant by means of photographs for the purpose of determining whether his constitutional rights were in any way impaired (Stovall v. Denno, supra), nevertheless, the court is mindful that such photographs are generally not admissible on the People’s direct case.

1918Thomas, J.: I concur for reversal upon the ground that upon the facts presented the violation of the statute was the proximate cause of the injury (Amberg v. Kinley, 214 N. Y. 531 ), and upon the trial the question of proximate cause and damages was for the jury.

1909Whether there ’was a gift inter vivos is simply a matter of the donor’s intention (Farleigh v. Cadman, 159 N. Y. 173 , 53 N. E. 808 ), and, from the circumstances under which these bonds left Mrs. Affleck’s possession, an intention upon her part at that time to relinquish all dominion over them for the benefit of the donee quite clearly appears.