core inquiry in New York

2024"The core of the inquiry is whether defendant received 'meaningful representation' " ( Benevento , 91 NY2d at 712 ), and "it is incumbent on [a] defendant [alleging ineffective assistance of counsel] to demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for defense counsel's allegedly deficient conduct" ( People v Atkins , 107 AD3d 1465, 1465 [4th Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1040 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2021"The core of the inquiry is whether defendant received meaningful representation" ( People v Benevento , 91 NY2d at 712 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2009It has long been a core principle of our system that a court has no inherent power to right a wrong unless the rights of the party requesting relief are affected by the challenged action (see Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk, 77 NY2d 761, 772 [1991]; Schieffelin v Komfort, 212 NY 520, 530 [1914]).

2009This requirement is a corollary of “the core requirement that a court can act only when the rights of the party requesting relief are affected” (Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk, 77 NY2d 761, 772 [1991]).

2019"The core of the inquiry is whether defendant received 'meaningful representation' " ( Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d at 712 , 674 N.Y.S.2d 629 , 697 N.E.2d 584 ; see also Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d at 147 , 444 N.Y.S.2d 893 , 429 N.E.2d 400 ).

2019"The core of the inquiry is whether defendant received 'meaningful representation' " ( Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d at 712 , 674 N.Y.S.2d 629 , 697 N.E.2d 584 ; see also Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d at 147 , 444 N.Y.S.2d 893 , 429 N.E.2d 400 ).

2015Furthermore, Stopa’s testimony revealed that the defendant never had possession of or even touched the fake gun. “ ‘The core requirement for all three degrees of robbery under the Penal Law is proof that the defendant forcibly stole property from another’ ” (People v Hiraeta, 117 AD3d 964 , 965 [2014], quoting People v Lopez, 73 NY2d 214, 219 [1989]).

2015Furthermore, Stopa’s testimony revealed that the defendant never had possession of or even touched the fake gun. “ ‘The core requirement for all three degrees of robbery under the Penal Law is proof that the defendant forcibly stole property from another’ ” (People v Hiraeta, 117 AD3d 964 , 965 [2014], quoting People v Lopez, 73 NY2d 214, 219 [1989]).

2026"The core principle is that to sustain liability against a municipality, the duty breached must be more than that owed the public generally" ( Applewhite v Accuhealth, Inc. , 21 NY3d 420, 426 [internal quotation marks [*2] omitted]).

2026"The core principle is that to sustain liability against a municipality, the duty breached must be more than that owed the public generally" ( Applewhite v Accuhealth, Inc. , 21 NY3d 420, 426 [internal quotation marks [*2] omitted]).

2026Moreover, the District Court's extensive review and approval of the settlement agreement as a consent decree demonstrate that the court took adequate measures to protect the interests of the Consolidated Cases plaintiffs and those whose interests aligned with theirs ( id. ; In re New York City Policing During Summer 2020 Demonstrations , 2024 WL 476367, at *15-19). "[A] party's right to rely upon the finality of the results of previous litigation is a core principle of res judicata ( Applied Card Systems , 11 NY3d at 125, citing Matter of New York State Labor Relations Bd. v Holland Laundry, I

2026Moreover, the District Court's extensive review and approval of the settlement agreement as a consent decree demonstrate that the court took adequate measures to protect the interests of the Consolidated Cases plaintiffs and those whose interests aligned with theirs ( id. ; In re New York City Policing During Summer 2020 Demonstrations , 2024 WL 476367 , at *15-19). "[A] party's right to rely upon the finality of the results of previous litigation is a core principle of res judicata ( Applied Card Systems , 11 NY3d at 125 , citing Matter of New York State Labor Relations Bd. v Holland Laundry,

2009It has long been a core principle of our system that a court has no inherent power to right a wrong unless the rights of the party requesting relief are affected by the challenged action (see Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk, 77 NY2d 761, 772 [1991]; Schieffelin v Komfort, 212 NY 520, 530 [1914]).

1991Under the common law, there is little doubt that a "court has no inherent power to right a wrong unless thereby the civil, property or personal rights of the plaintiff in the action or the petitioner in the proceeding are affected.” (Schieffelin v Komfort, 212 NY 520, 530 ; see also, Roosevelt v Draper, 23 NY 318, 323 ; Doolittle v Supervisors of Broome County, 18 NY 155 .) Whether derived from the Federal Constitution or the common law, the core requirement that a court can act only when the rights of the party requesting relief are affected, has been variously refashioned over the years.

2026Moreover, the District Court's extensive review and approval of the settlement agreement as a consent decree demonstrate that the court took adequate measures to protect the interests of the Consolidated Cases plaintiffs and those whose interests aligned with theirs ( id. ; In re New York City Policing During Summer 2020 Demonstrations , 2024 WL 476367, at *15-19). "[A] party's right to rely upon the finality of the results of previous litigation is a core principle of res judicata ( Applied Card Systems , 11 NY3d at 125, citing Matter of New York State Labor Relations Bd. v Holland Laundry, I

2026Moreover, the District Court's extensive review and approval of the settlement agreement as a consent decree demonstrate that the court took adequate measures to protect the interests of the Consolidated Cases plaintiffs and those whose interests aligned with theirs ( id. ; In re New York City Policing During Summer 2020 Demonstrations , 2024 WL 476367 , at *15-19). "[A] party's right to rely upon the finality of the results of previous litigation is a core principle of res judicata ( Applied Card Systems , 11 NY3d at 125 , citing Matter of New York State Labor Relations Bd. v Holland Laundry,

2025Here, the State established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging negligence insofar as asserted by Fox by submitting evidence demonstrating that the actions or inactions complained of involved the performance of the SLA's governmental function and that the State owed no special duty to Fox ( see Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 2; Lauer v City of New York , 95 NY2d at 102-103; Talisaysay v State of New York , 220 AD3d at 653; cf. Lapidus v State of New York , 57 AD3d 83, 92-93).

2013The core principle is that to “ ‘sustain liability against a municipality, the duty breached must be more than that owed the public generally’ ” (Valdez, 18 NY3d at 75 , quoting Lauer v City of New York, 95 NY2d 95, 100 [2000]).

2021Co. , 46 NY2d 276, 281-282 [1978]), and accordingly, there were no damages.

2021Co. , 46 NY2d 276, 281-282 [1978]), and accordingly, there were no damages.

2021The record evidence therefore established there was no breach of the selling agreement pertaining to the 60th Street property ( see Benjamin Goldstein Prods. v Fish , 198 AD2d 137, 138 [1st Dept 1993]), that the Core defendants did not induce a breach of the selling agreement ( Alvord & Swift v Muller Constr.

2021The record evidence therefore established there was no breach of the selling agreement pertaining to the 60th Street property ( see Benjamin Goldstein Prods. v Fish , 198 AD2d 137, 138 [1st Dept 1993]), that the Core defendants did not induce a breach of the selling agreement ( Alvord & Swift v Muller Constr.

2021The Core defendants established that there was no valid contract between plaintiff broker and the Dulocs, owners-sellers of property on East 60th Street, at the time of the alleged breach of an agreement to sell the East 60th Street property ( see Willis Re Inc. v Hudson , 29 AD3d 489, 490 [1st Dept 2006]), and that the Core defendants did not even know of that agreement until well after its termination.

2021The Core defendants established that there was no valid contract between plaintiff broker and the Dulocs, owners-sellers of property on East 60th Street, at the time of the alleged breach of an agreement to sell the East 60th Street property ( see Willis Re Inc. v Hudson , 29 AD3d 489, 490 [1st Dept 2006]), and that the Core defendants did not even know of that agreement until well after its termination.

2021To demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must show that he or she did not receive a fair trial because counsel's conduct was "egregious and prejudicial" ( People v Oathout , 21 NY3d 127, 131 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2015To demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must show that he or she did not receive a fair trial because counsel’s conduct was “egregious and prejudicial” (People v Oathout, 21 NY3d 127, 131 [2013]).

2018In making that assessment, a court must view counsel's performance in its totality, and, while the state standard does not require the defendant to "fully satisfy the prejudice test of Strickland ," the defendant's showing of prejudice is regarded as a "significant but not indispensable element" in assessing meaningful representation ( People v Caban , 5 NY3d 143 , 155-156 [2005] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see also People v Nicholson , 26 NY3d 813 , 831 [2016]).

2018In making that assessment, a court must view counsel's performance in its totality, and, while the state standard does not require a defendant to "fully satisfy the prejudice test of Strickland ," a defendant's showing of prejudice is regarded as a "significant but not indispensable element" in assessing meaningful representation ( People v Caban , 5 NY3d 143 , 155-156 [2005] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see also People v Nicholson , 26 NY3d 813 , 831 [2016]).

2014Instead, the core inquiry is whether the defendant had the “authority to supervise or control the activity bringing about the injury so as to enable it to avoid or correct the unsafe condition” (Rodriguez v JMB Architecture, LLC, 82 AD3d at 951 ; see Delahaye v Saint Anns School, 40 AD3d 679, 683 [2007]).

2014Instead, the core inquiry is whether the defendant had the “authority to supervise or control the activity bringing about the injury so as to enable it to avoid or correct the unsafe condition” (Rodriguez v JMB Architecture, LLC, 82 AD3d at 951 ; see Delahaye v Saint Anns School, 40 AD3d 679, 683 [2007]).

2018In making that assessment, a court must view counsel's performance in its totality, and, while the state standard does not require the defendant to "fully satisfy the prejudice test of Strickland ," the defendant's showing of prejudice is regarded as a "significant but not indispensable element" in assessing meaningful representation ( People v Caban , 5 NY3d 143 , 155-156 [2005] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see also People v Nicholson , 26 NY3d 813 , 831 [2016]).

2018In making that assessment, a court must view counsel's performance in its totality, and, while the state standard does not require a defendant to "fully satisfy the prejudice test of Strickland ," a defendant's showing of prejudice is regarded as a "significant but not indispensable element" in assessing meaningful representation ( People v Caban , 5 NY3d 143 , 155-156 [2005] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see also People v Nicholson , 26 NY3d 813 , 831 [2016]).

2025"Instead, the core inquiry is whether the defendant had the 'authority to supervise or control the activity bringing about the injury so as to enable it to avoid or correct the unsafe condition'" ( Myles v Claxton , 115 AD3d at 655 , quoting Rodriguez v JMB Architecture, LLC , 82 AD3d 949, 951 ; see Barrios v City of New York , 75 AD3d 517, 518-519 ; Tomyuk v Junefield Assoc. , 57 AD3d 518, 520 ).

2018"The label given a defendant, whether construction manager' or general contractor,' is not determinative . . . [inasmuch as] the core inquiry is whether the defendant had the authority to supervise or control the activity bringing about the injury so as to enable it to avoid or correct the unsafe condition' " ( Myles v Claxton , 115 AD3d 654, 655 [2d Dept 2014]).

2024"The core of the inquiry is whether defendant received 'meaningful representation' " ( Benevento , 91 NY2d at 712 ), and "it is incumbent on [a] defendant [alleging ineffective assistance of counsel] to demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for defense counsel's allegedly deficient conduct" ( People v Atkins , 107 AD3d 1465, 1465 [4th Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1040 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2020Thus, "it is incumbent on [a] defendant to demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for defense counsel's allegedly deficient conduct" ( People v Atkins , 107 AD3d 1465 , 1465 [4th Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1040 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Bank , 124 AD3d 1376 , 1377 [4th Dept 2015], affd 28 NY3d 131 [2016]; People v Young , 167 AD3d 1448 , 1449 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 33 NY3d 1036 [2019]).

2019In making that assessment, the court must view counsel's performance in its totality" ( People v. Wragg, 26 N.Y.3d 403 , 409, 23 N.Y.S.3d 600 , 44 N.E.3d 898 [2015] ).

2019In making that assessment, the court must view counsel's performance in its totality" ( People v. Wragg, 26 N.Y.3d 403 , 409, 23 N.Y.S.3d 600 , 44 N.E.3d 898 [2015] ).

2019"As long as the defense reflects a reasonable and legitimate strategy under the circumstances and evidence presented, even if unsuccessful, it will not fall to the level of ineffective assistance" ( Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d at 712 -713 , 674 N.Y.S.2d 629 , 697 N.E.2d 584 , citing People v. Lane, 60 N.Y.2d 748 , 750, 469 N.Y.S.2d 663 , 457 N.E.2d 769 [1983] ).

2019"As long as the defense reflects a reasonable and legitimate strategy under the circumstances and evidence presented, even if unsuccessful, it will not fall to the level of ineffective assistance" ( Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d at 712 -713 , 674 N.Y.S.2d 629 , 697 N.E.2d 584 , citing People v. Lane, 60 N.Y.2d 748 , 750, 469 N.Y.S.2d 663 , 457 N.E.2d 769 [1983] ).

2026"A special relationship can be formed in three ways: (1) when the municipality violates a statutory duty enacted for the benefit of a particular class of persons; (2) when it voluntarily assumes a duty that generates justifiable reliance by the person who benefits from the duty; or (3) when the municipality assumes positive direction and control in the face of a known, blatant and dangerous safety violation" ( Pelaez v Seide , 2 NY3d 186, 199-200 ; see Applewhite v Accuhealth, Inc. , 21 NY3d at 426 ).

2026"A special relationship can be formed in three ways: (1) when the municipality violates a statutory duty enacted for the benefit of a particular class of persons; (2) when it voluntarily assumes a duty that generates justifiable reliance by the person who benefits from the duty; or (3) when the municipality assumes positive direction and control in the face of a known, blatant and dangerous safety violation" ( Pelaez v Seide , 2 NY3d 186, 199-200; see Applewhite v Accuhealth, Inc. , 21 NY3d at 426).

2026Moreover, the District Court's extensive review and approval of the settlement agreement as a consent decree demonstrate that the court took adequate measures to protect the interests of the Consolidated Cases plaintiffs and those whose interests aligned with theirs ( id. ; In re New York City Policing During Summer 2020 Demonstrations , 2024 WL 476367, at *15-19). "[A] party's right to rely upon the finality of the results of previous litigation is a core principle of res judicata ( Applied Card Systems , 11 NY3d at 125, citing Matter of New York State Labor Relations Bd. v Holland Laundry, I

2026Moreover, the District Court's extensive review and approval of the settlement agreement as a consent decree demonstrate that the court took adequate measures to protect the interests of the Consolidated Cases plaintiffs and those whose interests aligned with theirs ( id. ; In re New York City Policing During Summer 2020 Demonstrations , 2024 WL 476367 , at *15-19). "[A] party's right to rely upon the finality of the results of previous litigation is a core principle of res judicata ( Applied Card Systems , 11 NY3d at 125 , citing Matter of New York State Labor Relations Bd. v Holland Laundry,

2026Damages are a core requirement of a claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing (AMF Trust Ventures LLC v 180 Group LLC, _AD3d_, 2026 NY Slip Op 00073, *1 [2026]).

2025Here, the State established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging negligence insofar as asserted by Fox by submitting evidence demonstrating that the actions or inactions complained of involved the performance of the SLA's governmental function and that the State owed no special duty to Fox ( see Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 2; Lauer v City of New York , 95 NY2d at 102-103 ; Talisaysay v State of New York , 220 AD3d at 653; cf. Lapidus v State of New York , 57 AD3d 83, 92-93 ).

2025Here, the State established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging negligence insofar as asserted by Fox by submitting evidence demonstrating that the actions or inactions complained of involved the performance of the SLA's governmental function and that the State owed no special duty to Fox ( see Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 2; Lauer v City of New York , 95 NY2d at 102-103; Talisaysay v State of New York , 220 AD3d at 653; cf. Lapidus v State of New York , 57 AD3d 83, 92-93).

2025"Instead, the core inquiry is whether the defendant had the 'authority to supervise or control the activity bringing about the injury so as to enable it to avoid or correct the unsafe condition'" ( Myles v Claxton , 115 AD3d at 655 , quoting Rodriguez v JMB Architecture, LLC , 82 AD3d 949, 951 ; see Barrios v City of New York , 75 AD3d 517, 518-519 ; Tomyuk v Junefield Assoc. , 57 AD3d 518, 520 ).