grounds claim in New York

2016That contention “survives his guilty plea only insofar as he contends that his plea was infected by the allegedly ineffective assistance and that he entered the plea because of his attorney’s allegedly poor performance” (Pe ople v Bethune, 21 AD3d 1316, 1316 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 752 [2005]; see People v Petgen, 55 NY2d 529, 534-535 [1982], rearg denied 57 NY2d 674 [1982]).

2016That contention “survives his guilty plea only insofar as he contends that his plea was infected by the allegedly ineffective assistance and that he entered the plea because of his attorney’s allegedly poor performance” (Pe ople v Bethune, 21 AD3d 1316, 1316 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 752 [2005]; see People v Petgen, 55 NY2d 529, 534-535 [1982], rearg denied 57 NY2d 674 [1982]).

2012Here, to the extent that the complaint was vague as to the nature of the allegations of legal malpractice and otherwise deficient, the plaintiff, in opposition to the defendants’ motion, submitted evidence, including her affidavit, in which she sufficiently remedied any pleading defects and delineated the grounds for her claim of legal malpractice (see Quinones v Schaap 91 AD3d 739 [2012]; Reiver v Burkhart Wexler & Hirschberg, LLP, 73 AD 3d 1149 [2010]; see also Gelobter v Fox, 90 AD3d 829, 830-831 [2011]).

2012Here, to the extent that the complaint was vague as to the nature of the allegations of legal malpractice and otherwise deficient, the plaintiff, in opposition to the defendants’ motion, submitted evidence, including her affidavit, in which she sufficiently remedied any pleading defects and delineated the grounds for her claim of legal malpractice (see Quinones v Schaap 91 AD3d 739 [2012]; Reiver v Burkhart Wexler & Hirschberg, LLP, 73 AD 3d 1149 [2010]; see also Gelobter v Fox, 90 AD3d 829, 830-831 [2011]).

2012Here, to the extent that the complaint was vague as to the nature of the allegations of legal malpractice and otherwise deficient, the plaintiff, in opposition to the defendants’ motion, submitted evidence, including her affidavit, in which she sufficiently remedied any pleading defects and delineated the grounds for her claim of legal malpractice (see Quinones v Schaap 91 AD3d 739 [2012]; Reiver v Burkhart Wexler & Hirschberg, LLP, 73 AD 3d 1149 [2010]; see also Gelobter v Fox, 90 AD3d 829, 830-831 [2011]).

2012Here, to the extent that the complaint was vague as to the nature of the allegations of legal malpractice and otherwise deficient, the plaintiff, in opposition to the defendants’ motion, submitted evidence, including her affidavit, in which she sufficiently remedied any pleading defects and delineated the grounds for her claim of legal malpractice (see Quinones v Schaap 91 AD3d 739 [2012]; Reiver v Burkhart Wexler & Hirschberg, LLP, 73 AD 3d 1149 [2010]; see also Gelobter v Fox, 90 AD3d 829, 830-831 [2011]).

2026Defendant's argument that this Court is barred from affirming his conviction on the grounds of waiver or harmless error by People v LaFontaine ( 92 NY2d 470 [1998]) and CPL 470.15(1) is unavailing.

2026Defendant's argument that this Court is barred from affirming his conviction on the grounds of waiver or harmless error by People v LaFontaine (92 NY2d 470 [1998]) and CPL 470.15(1) is unavailing.

2023"Conversion is any unauthorized exercise of dominion or control over property by one who is not the owner of the property which interferes with and is in defiance of a superior possessory right of another in the property" ( Hart v City of Albany , 272 AD2d 668, 668 [3d Dept 2000] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). "[W]here possession of property is initially lawful, conversion occurs when there is a refusal to return the property upon demand" ( Salatino v Salatino , 64 AD3d 923, 925 [3d Dept 2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 710 [2009]).

2023"Conversion is any unauthorized exercise of dominion or control over property by one who is not the owner of the property which interferes with and is in defiance of a superior possessory right of another in the property" ( Hart v City of Albany , 272 AD2d 668, 668 [3d Dept 2000] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). "[W]here possession of property is initially lawful, conversion occurs when there is a refusal to return the property upon demand" ( Salatino v Salatino , 64 AD3d 923, 925 [3d Dept 2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 710 [2009]).

2011(Storey v Searle Blatt Ltd., 685 F Supp 80, 82 [SD NY 1988]; see Matter of Kubarych v Siegel, 156 Misc 2d 935, 937 [Sup Ct, NY County 1993] [“(T)he law will overlook, on the grounds of waiver, a claim of misconduct where the complaining party had either actual or constructive knowledge of the arbitrator’s impropriety, had an opportunity to object and failed to do so before the award was rendered”]; Campbell, 613 F Supp 2d at 1116 .) As discussed above, Brooks not only submitted thorough briefs to the Panel but entered evidence to support his position against the summary judgment motion.

2007The Court of Appeals remitted this matter to this Court ( 6 NY3d 202 [2005]) for consideration of the appropriate remedy after reversing defendant’s conviction for depraved indifference murder (Penal Law § 125.25 [2]) on the grounds that it was error to submit that count to the jury since the evidence was legally insufficient to support it.

2005However, this court has found one New York case from Bronx County that interpreted the statutory phrase the “same conduct charged.” People v Beirati ( 136 Misc 2d 959 [Sup Ct, Bronx County 1987]), interpreted CPL 270.20 (1) (e), a section of the CPL which prescribes one of the grounds for a challenge “for cause” of a prospective juror for a criminal case involving charges by way of indictment in superior court, not by way of an information.

2005Many of these cases, as reflected in the decisions, involve issues of medical causation, such as birth defects (Lewin v County of Suffolk, 18 AD3d 621 [2d Dept 2005]; Del Maestro v Grecco, 16 AD3d 364 [2d Dept 2005]; Saulpaugh v Krafte, 5 AD3d 934 [3d Dept 2004]; Lara v New York City Health & Hosps.

2005Many of these cases, as reflected in the decisions, involve issues of medical causation, such as birth defects (Lewin v County of Suffolk, 18 AD3d 621 [2d Dept 2005]; Del Maestro v Grecco, 16 AD3d 364 [2d Dept 2005]; Saulpaugh v Krafte, 5 AD3d 934 [3d Dept 2004]; Lara v New York City Health & Hosps.

2005Many of these cases, as reflected in the decisions, involve issues of medical causation, such as birth defects (Lewin v County of Suffolk, 18 AD3d 621 [2d Dept 2005]; Del Maestro v Grecco, 16 AD3d 364 [2d Dept 2005]; Saulpaugh v Krafte, 5 AD3d 934 [3d Dept 2004]; Lara v New York City Health & Hosps.

1998The exception to the requirement that issues must be preserved for appellate review applies only where the issue is one of law which appears on the face of the record and which could not have been avoided if raised at the proper juncture (see, Libeson v Copy Realty Corp., 167 AD2d 376 ; Block v Ma-gee, 146 AD2d 730 ).

1998The exception to the requirement that issues must be preserved for appellate review applies only where the issue is one of law which appears on the face of the record and which could not have been avoided if raised at the proper juncture (see, Libeson v Copy Realty Corp., 167 AD2d 376 ; Block v Ma-gee, 146 AD2d 730 ).

1994Furthermore, defendant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to present the grounds for his challenge to the plea and his request for an adjournment and neither further inquiry nor an evidentiary hearing was required (see, People v Frederick, 45 NY2d 520, 525 ; People v McNair [appeal No. 1], 186 AD2d 1089 , lv denied 80 NY2d 1028 ).

1994Furthermore, defendant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to present the grounds for his challenge to the plea and his request for an adjournment and neither further inquiry nor an evidentiary hearing was required (see, People v Frederick, 45 NY2d 520, 525 ; People v McNair [appeal No. 1], 186 AD2d 1089 , lv denied 80 NY2d 1028 ).

1993(Matter of Stevens & Co. [Rytex Corp.], 34 NY2d 123 ; Matter of Namdar v Mirzoeff, supra, 161 AD2d 348 ; Matter of Sterling Cheek v Chubb & Son, 70 AD2d 622 ; Palmieri v Insurance Co., 67 AD2d 967 ; Matter of Lebow [Bogner-Seitel Realty], 55 AD2d 695 ; cf., Matter of Catalyst Waste-to-Energy Corp. [City of Long Beach], supra, 164 AD2d 817 , where the aggrieved party preserved his claim by timely objection.) Admittedly, all the aforementioned cases involved situations where the complaining parties’ conduct was passive.

1993(Matter of Stevens & Co. [Rytex Corp.], 34 NY2d 123 ; Matter of Namdar v Mirzoeff, supra, 161 AD2d 348 ; Matter of Sterling Cheek v Chubb & Son, 70 AD2d 622 ; Palmieri v Insurance Co., 67 AD2d 967 ; Matter of Lebow [Bogner-Seitel Realty], 55 AD2d 695 ; cf., Matter of Catalyst Waste-to-Energy Corp. [City of Long Beach], supra, 164 AD2d 817 , where the aggrieved party preserved his claim by timely objection.) Admittedly, all the aforementioned cases involved situations where the complaining parties’ conduct was passive.