threefold test in New York

1976A more recent and additional basis of compensability applies to items that would lose substantial value if removed even though readily removable (Jackson v. State of New York, 213 N. Y. 34 ; Matter of City of New York [North Riv.

1972A more recent and additional basis of compensability applies to items that would lose •substantial value if removed even though readily removable (Jackson v. State of New York, 213 N. Y. 34 ; Matter of City of New York [North Riv.

1987Thus, the court has considered the threefold factors mentioned in Albini (supra).

1987Corp. v A & P Tanker Corp., 84 AD2d 796 ; Blake v Biscardi, 52 AD2d 834 ).

1987Corp. v A & P Tanker Corp., 84 AD2d 796 ; Blake v Biscardi, 52 AD2d 834 ).

1983It applies only if the facts and circumstances satisfy a threefold test that (1) the observation was made from a lawfully obtained vantage point, (2) the object was observed inadvertently, and (3) the evidentiary value of the observed article was immediately apparent (Coolidge v New Hampshire, 403 US 443, 446-471 ; People v Jackson, 41 NY2d 146 ,150).

1974In dealing with the validity of the use of public funds to assist children enrolled in parochial schools by providing them with free secular textbooks, a service provided to children attending public schools, the Supreme Court of the United States in Lemán v. Kurtzman ( 403 U. S. 602, 612-613 ) formulated a threefold test of constitutionality for such aid under the establishment-of-religion aspect of the First Amendment: “First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, Board of Educatio

1974In dealing with the validity of the use of public funds to assist children enrolled in parochial schools by providing them with free secular textbooks, a service provided to children attending public schools, the Supreme Court of the United States in Lemán v. Kurtzman ( 403 U. S. 602, 612-613 ) formulated a threefold test of constitutionality for such aid under the establishment-of-religion aspect of the First Amendment: “First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, Board of Educatio

1974In dealing with the validity of the use of public funds to assist children enrolled in parochial schools by providing them with free secular textbooks, a service provided to children attending public schools, the Supreme Court of the United States in Lemán v. Kurtzman ( 403 U. S. 602, 612-613 ) formulated a threefold test of constitutionality for such aid under the establishment-of-religion aspect of the First Amendment: “First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, Board of Educatio

1971Mishkin v. New York ( 383 U. S. 502 ) has added a fourth test.

1969(Roth v. United States, supra.) (4) Hard-core pornography is obscene under both Federal and New York law. ( Redrup, supra; People v. Noroff, supra.) (5) Motion pictures, like books, are entitled to the protection of the First Amendment, and the threefold test stated in ‘ ‘ Fanny Hill ” is applicable to both.

1969Apparently mindful of Redrup (supra), the court warned the importers, distributors and exhibitors that if they failed to exclude minors from the audience they would be subject to attack under Ginsberg v. New York ( 390 U. S. 629 [1968]), and, if they “ pandered ” the film, then Ginzburg v. United States ( 383 U. S. 463 [1966]), would be applicable.

1969Apparently mindful of Redrup (supra), the court warned the importers, distributors and exhibitors that if they failed to exclude minors from the audience they would be subject to attack under Ginsberg v. New York ( 390 U. S. 629 [1968]), and, if they “ pandered ” the film, then Ginzburg v. United States ( 383 U. S. 463 [1966]), would be applicable.

1969Apparently mindful of Redrup (supra), the court warned the importers, distributors and exhibitors that if they failed to exclude minors from the audience they would be subject to attack under Ginsberg v. New York ( 390 U. S. 629 [1968]), and, if they “ pandered ” the film, then Ginzburg v. United States ( 383 U. S. 463 [1966]), would be applicable.

1969(I Am Curious-Yellow, supra.) (6) The “ prurient appeal ” test of “Fanny Hill ” includes prurient appeal to sexually deviant groups.

1969(Roth v. United States, supra.) (4) Hard-core pornography is obscene under both Federal and New York law. ( Redrup, supra; People v. Noroff, supra.) (5) Motion pictures, like books, are entitled to the protection of the First Amendment, and the threefold test stated in ‘ ‘ Fanny Hill ” is applicable to both.