ameliorative instruction in New York

2017Defendant concedes that he failed to object to allegedly improper comments made by the People in their summation and, when placed in context, those comments do not motivate us to take corrective action in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6]; People v Scippio, 144 AD3d 1184, 1187 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1150 , 2017 NY Slip Op 97185[U] [Jan. 17, 2017]).

2017Defendant concedes that he failed to object to allegedly improper comments made by the People in their summation and, when placed in context, those comments do not motivate us to take corrective action in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6]; People v Scippio, 144 AD3d 1184, 1187 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1150 , 2017 NY Slip Op 97185[U] [Jan. 17, 2017]).

2021Nevertheless, we note that County Court gave an ameliorative instruction to the jury that cured any prejudice ( see People v Ruiz , 148 AD3d 1212, 1216 [2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 983 [2017]).

2021Defense counsel also failed to object to the court's Molineux ruling that defendant's ex-girlfriend could testify that she saw defendant in possession of the revolver only a few months before the shooting, and failed to render a contemporaneous objection to this testimony at trial ( see People v Rose , 185 AD3d at 1232 ).

2017Under these circumstances, defendant did not demonstrate prejudice substantial enough to warrant a mistrial (see CPL 280.10 [1]; People v Watson, 281 AD2d 691, 695-696 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 925 [2001]; People v Benito, 256 *1028 AD2d 221, 221 [1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 850 [1999], cert denied 528 US 810 [1999]).

2006Defendant is not entitled, pursuant to the ameliorative doctrine of People v Behlog ( 74 NY2d 237, 240 [1989]), to the benefit of the reduced penalties contained in the Drug Law Reform Act (L 2004, ch 738), because the Legislature has expressly-stated that the provision upon which defendant relies applies only to crimes committed after its effective date (People v Nelson, 21 AD 3d 861 [2005], lv granted 6 NY3d 757 [2005]).

1984However, as the State’s Court of Appeals has recently reiterated, failure to timely serve the officer designated by statute to receive service of a claim constitutes a fatal defect which is not susceptible to the ameliorative doctrine of substantial compliance (Parochial Bus Systems v Board of Educ., 60 NY2d 539, 547-548 ; see Davidson v Bronx Municipal Hosp., 99 AD2d 730, 732 ).

1984More specifically, with respect to claims against the State, it has long been the law that failure to timely comply with the statutory filing requirements of the Court of Claims Act and the rules promulgated in accordance therewith constitutes a fatal jurisdictional defect (see, e.g., Matter of Welch v State of New York, 71 AD2d 494, 498 , supra, and cases cited therein; see, also, Battistoni v State of New York, Claim No. 64132, affd 91 AD2d 877 , mot for lv to app den 58 NY2d 608 ).

1983While this court has only indirectly relied upon Oliver for this principle (People v Farr, supra; People v Askew, supra), and has never cited to it directly, the ameliorative principle Oliver stands for has been indorsed, in logic paralleling that of Judge Fuld.

1983While this court has only indirectly relied upon Oliver for this principle (People v Farr, supra; People v Askew, supra), and has never cited to it directly, the ameliorative principle Oliver stands for has been indorsed, in logic paralleling that of Judge Fuld.

1981Operating Auth., 46 NY2d 528, 533 ; cf. CPLR art 14-A).