adopt rule in New York

2004Pursuant to the authority of People v Hicks ( 98 NY2d 185 [2002]), this court held a Hicks evidentiary hearing, to establish what admonitions the defendant was given with respect to the issue at bar, and as to what violations, if any, the defendant committed with respect to the “Hicks admonitions.” Although it is not clear from the Court of Appeals decision in Hicks nor in the subsequent decision of People v Powell ( 196 Misc 2d 977 [Nassau County Ct 2003]) as to what standard of proof a trial court ought to use in determining whether or not a violation took place, this court will a adopt a st

2004Pursuant to the authority of People v Hicks ( 98 NY2d 185 [2002]), this court held a Hicks evidentiary hearing, to establish what admonitions the defendant was given with respect to the issue at bar, and as to what violations, if any, the defendant committed with respect to the “Hicks admonitions.” Although it is not clear from the Court of Appeals decision in Hicks nor in the subsequent decision of People v Powell ( 196 Misc 2d 977 [Nassau County Ct 2003]) as to what standard of proof a trial court ought to use in determining whether or not a violation took place, this court will a adopt a st

1986Nevertheless, the plaintiffs urge this court to adopt the exception to the general rule carved out by the courts in a number of jurisdictions under which an attorney may be liable to an intended beneficiary who is harmed by the attorney’s negligence in drafting a will (e.g., Ogle v Fuiten, 102 Ill 2d 356, 466 NE2d 224 ; Aurie v Continental Cas.

1986Co., 111 Wis 2d 507 , 331 NW2d 325 ; Licata v Spector, 26 Conn Sup 378, 225 A2d 28 ; Lucas v Hamm, 56 Cal 2d 583, 364 P2d 685 , cert denied 368 US 987 ).

1986Co., 111 Wis 2d 507 , 331 NW2d 325 ; Licata v Spector, 26 Conn Sup 378, 225 A2d 28 ; Lucas v Hamm, 56 Cal 2d 583, 364 P2d 685 , cert denied 368 US 987 ).

1986Co., 111 Wis 2d 507 , 331 NW2d 325 ; Licata v Spector, 26 Conn Sup 378, 225 A2d 28 ; Lucas v Hamm, 56 Cal 2d 583, 364 P2d 685 , cert denied 368 US 987 ).

1986Co., 111 Wis 2d 507 , 331 NW2d 325 ; Licata v Spector, 26 Conn Sup 378, 225 A2d 28 ; Lucas v Hamm, 56 Cal 2d 583, 364 P2d 685 , cert denied 368 US 987 ).

1986Co., 111 Wis 2d 507 , 331 NW2d 325 ; Licata v Spector, 26 Conn Sup 378, 225 A2d 28 ; Lucas v Hamm, 56 Cal 2d 583, 364 P2d 685 , cert denied 368 US 987 ).

1985His cogent analysis cannot be improved upon and states my position precisely and concisely (id., at pp 168-169): "Since that decision [People v Defore, supra], no 'organ of government’ has given notice to the courts that the change has come to pass.

1982In Sharp v Scully ( 509 F Supp 493, 495 ) the United States District Court held that “the adoption of a different and higher standard of mental competency for pleading guilty than for proceeding to trial would be utter mischief, and would force psychiatrists, and certainly judges, to draw lines that are in fact ‘too fine’ to be determined.” Were this court to adopt the rule posted by Abbott, it would be holding, in essence, that there are defendants who are charged with serious crimes who allegedly lack the mental capability to plead guilty but who at the same time possess the mental capacity

1982In Sharp v Scully ( 509 F Supp 493, 495 ) the United States District Court held that “the adoption of a different and higher standard of mental competency for pleading guilty than for proceeding to trial would be utter mischief, and would force psychiatrists, and certainly judges, to draw lines that are in fact ‘too fine’ to be determined.” Were this court to adopt the rule posted by Abbott, it would be holding, in essence, that there are defendants who are charged with serious crimes who allegedly lack the mental capability to plead guilty but who at the same time possess the mental capacity

1977Without indulging in a further recitation of the history of these litigations, suffice it to say that the defendant, the State of New York, urges this court to adopt the requirement of strict conformance with the fact pattern as it existed in Claim No. 47847 as such facts were recited by the Court of Appeals (City of New York v State of New York, 40 NY2d 659 ) in its ultimate review of Judge Squire’s decision in the case cited (City of New York v State of New York, 61 Misc 2d 517 , supra).

1977Without indulging in a further recitation of the history of these litigations, suffice it to say that the defendant, the State of New York, urges this court to adopt the requirement of strict conformance with the fact pattern as it existed in Claim No. 47847 as such facts were recited by the Court of Appeals (City of New York v State of New York, 40 NY2d 659 ) in its ultimate review of Judge Squire’s decision in the case cited (City of New York v State of New York, 61 Misc 2d 517 , supra).

1972Specifically, appellant contends that early in the trial a conflicting interest became apparent between him and his codefendant which required the court to take necessary steps to protect his right to effective representation. 1 Appellant does not suggest that this court adopt the rule in Ford v. United States ( 379 F. 2d 123 ), which presumes a conflict of interests when two or more defendants are represented by one attorney.

1963The testatrix directed the payment of three legacies, including those to her nieces, out of one half of the trust remainder and then stated “and the balance of said one-half share shall be paid by my said executor and trustee to Lying-In Hospital of the City of New York.” The intestate distributees urge this court to adopt the rule enunciated in Wright v. Wright ( 225 N. Y. 329, 340 ), which is that the residuum cannot be augmented by a “ residue of a residue ’ ’.

1963The charitable legatee contends that this rule is not applicable to the case at bar because the will evidences an opposite intent (Oliver v. Wells, 254 N. Y. 451 ; Matter of Purvey, 34 Misc 2d 913 , affd. 18 A D 2d 657; Matter of Zollikoffer, 157 Misc. 837 ).

1963The charitable legatee contends that this rule is not applicable to the case at bar because the will evidences an opposite intent (Oliver v. Wells, 254 N. Y. 451 ; Matter of Purvey, 34 Misc 2d 913 , affd. 18 A D 2d 657; Matter of Zollikoffer, 157 Misc. 837 ).

1963The charitable legatee contends that this rule is not applicable to the case at bar because the will evidences an opposite intent (Oliver v. Wells, 254 N. Y. 451 ; Matter of Purvey, 34 Misc 2d 913 , affd. 18 A D 2d 657; Matter of Zollikoffer, 157 Misc. 837 ).

1888In Warner v. Insurance Co., 109 U. S. 357 , 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 221, the court adopt this rule, and refer to several cases, among them to Sewall v. Wilmer, 132 Mass. 131 .

1888In Warner v. Insurance Co., 109 U. S. 357 , 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 221, the court adopt this rule, and refer to several cases, among them to Sewall v. Wilmer, 132 Mass. 131 .