addressed claim in New York

2004In People v Almonor ( 93 NY2d 571 [1999]), the Court addressed a defense failure to furnish in a timely fashion raw data underlying one expert’s tests prior to the trial.

2004In People v Almonor ( 93 NY2d 571 [1999]), the Court addressed a defense failure to furnish in a timely fashion raw data underlying one expert's tests prior to the trial.

2020Next, this Court determined that the Supreme Court [*3]did not lack jurisdiction to entertain this branch of the plaintiff's motion, stating that "[i]nasmuch as no judgment was entered dismissing the action, the action was pending when the plaintiff moved to extend the time to serve Saintus with process" ( US Bank N.A. v Saintus , 153 AD3d at 1382 , citing Cooke-Garrett v Hoque , 109 AD3d 457 ).

2020Next, this Court determined that the Supreme Court [*3]did not lack jurisdiction to entertain this branch of the plaintiff's motion, stating that "[i]nasmuch as no judgment was entered dismissing the action, the action was pending when the plaintiff moved to extend the time to serve Saintus with process" ( US Bank N.A. v Saintus , 153 AD3d at 1382 , citing Cooke-Garrett v Hoque , 109 AD3d 457 ).

2010In addressing the due process requirements for civil commitment proceedings, the Court in Addington and Santosky relied heavily on its decision in Winship , wherein the Court addressed the standard of proof required in civil juvenile delinquency proceedings ( 397 US 358 [1970]).

2010In Winship , the Supreme Court reversed the order of the New York Court of Appeals in Matter of Samuel W. ( 24 NY2d 196 [1969]).

2005As stated in Barski v State of New York ( 43 AD2d 767, 768 ): £ “the sum claimed has no bearing upon the State’s knowledge and investigation (McCabe v State of New York, 58 Misc 2d 823 ).

2005The absence of the ad damnum from a tort claim received comment from the Court of Claims in Wilson v State of New York ( 117 Misc 2d 608 [1983, Lengyel, J.]), where the court addressed a claim for an intentional tort that had been rendered untimely by the Third Department’s decision in Trayer v State of New York ( 90 AD2d 263 [1982]) holding that a claim for an intentional tort interposed more than one year after accrual was untimely (based on the CPLR 215 one-year statute of limitations). 11 Wilson held the defendant had waived any statute of limitations defense by not pleading it in its answ

2005As stated in Barski v State of New York ( 43 AD2d 767, 768 ): £ “the sum claimed has no bearing upon the State’s knowledge and investigation (McCabe v State of New York, 58 Misc 2d 823 ).

2005The absence of the ad damnum from a tort claim received comment from the Court of Claims in Wilson v State of New York ( 117 Misc 2d 608 [1983, Lengyel, J.]), where the court addressed a claim for an intentional tort that had been rendered untimely by the Third Department’s decision in Trayer v State of New York ( 90 AD2d 263 [1982]) holding that a claim for an intentional tort interposed more than one year after accrual was untimely (based on the CPLR 215 one-year statute of limitations). 11 Wilson held the defendant had waived any statute of limitations defense by not pleading it in its answ

2004Love involved a challenge to the intelligent and knowing waiver of Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights based upon the defendant's prior history of psychiatric hospitalization.{** 5 Misc 3d at 372 } In Rosa , the Court addressed a claim that the defendant's right to counsel had been violated due to his having been represented by counsel on an earlier charge at the time of his interrogation.

2002Similarly, in People v Ahmed ( 66 NY2d at 310-311 ), the Court addressed a claim that the absence of the judge and delegation of responsibility to his law secretary who reinstructed the jury on the law during its deliberations deprived the defendant of his right to a jury trial, which includes the supervision of a judge as an “integral component” of that right.

1999In Heldman (supra), the court addressed a challenge to the impartiality of Hearing Officers reviewing school district decisions regarding educational programs for handicapped children.

1985In People v Saddy ( 84 AD2d 175 ), this court addressed the factors which must be evaluated when determining whether the prosecution should be sanctioned for the destruction of potentially exculpatory material.

1985These factors are: the degree of negligence or bad faith on the part of law enforcement officials, the importance of the lost evidence, and the sufficiency of the other evidence adduced at trial (People v Saddy, supra, at p 179 ; see also, United States v Bryant, 439 F2d 642, 653).