minutes hearing in New York

2019Based on our in camera review of the minutes of a hearing conducted pursuant to People v Darden ( 34 NY2d 177 [1974]), we find no basis for suppression.

2018Based on our in camera review of the minutes of a hearing conducted pursuant to People v Darden ( 34 NY2d 177 [1974]), we find no basis for suppression.

2007However, the determination dated March 11, 2005 must be annulled, as the respondents, in effect, correctly concede, since the minutes of the hearing do not exist (see Matter of Parkinson v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 191 AD2d 635, 636 [1993]; Matter of Gittens v Sullivan, 151 AD2d 481 [1989]; Matter of Jacob v Winch, 121 AD2d 446, 446-447 [1986]; Matter of Dupree v Scully, 100 AD2d 966, 967 [1984]).

1993Since the minutes of the hearing do not exist, the determination should be annulled (see, Matter of Gittens v Sullivan, 151 AD2d 481 ).

2000Similarly, a defendant’s absence from a Sandoval hearing was held to be cured by the subsequent reading of the minutes of the hearing in his presence, after which defendant was given an opportunity to consult with counsel and raise any objections (see, People v Lamour, 189 AD2d 825 , lv denied 81 NY2d 973 ).

1995Further, in People v Whethers ( 212 AD2d 820 ), we held that the defendant’s absence from the Sandoval hearing did not constitute reversible error because: (1) the defendant was apprised of the discussions that had occurred in his absence; (2) he was informed of those charges about which the prosecutor wished to inquire; and (3) he was given an opportunity to address the court; Finally, in People v Lamour ( 189 AD2d 825 ), we held that the defendant’s absence from the Sandoval hearing was cured when the court read the minutes of the hearing into the record in the defendant’s presence and he wa

1997Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 179-180 ).

1985Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176 [1978]).

1945If the judgment debtor had taken the position, at the time the application was before the court for confirmation of the referee’s report, that the minutes of the hearing before the referee should be produced, that position would undoubtedly have been sustained (Aron v. Aron, 280 N. Y. 328 ).

1939(Aron v. Aron, 280 N. Y. 328 .

2017Based on our in camera review of the minutes of the hearing conducted pursuant to People v Darden ( 34 NY2d 177 [1974]), we find that there was probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant and that there was no violation of Brady v Maryland ( 373 US 83 [1963]).

2014The affidavits explained, in detail, why these techniques had been successful only up to a point, and why continued use of the same methods would have little chance of yielding the necessary evidence (see People v Rabb, 16 NY3d 145 [2011]; People v Giraldo, 270 AD2d 97 , 98 [1st Dept 2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 934 [2000]; People v Acevedo, 261 AD2d 308 [1st Dept 1999], lv denied 94 AD2d 819 [1999]). *517 This Court has conducted an in camera review of the minutes of the hearing conducted pursuant to People v Darden ( 34 NY2d 177 [1974]).

2014The affidavits explained, in detail, why these techniques had been successful only up to a point, and why continued use of the same methods would have little chance of yielding the necessary evidence (see People v Rabb, 16 NY3d 145 [2011]; People v Giraldo, 270 AD2d 97 , 98 [1st Dept 2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 934 [2000]; People v Acevedo, 261 AD2d 308 [1st Dept 1999], lv denied 94 AD2d 819 [1999]). *517 This Court has conducted an in camera review of the minutes of the hearing conducted pursuant to People v Darden ( 34 NY2d 177 [1974]).

2014The affidavits explained, in detail, why these techniques had been successful only up to a point, and why continued use of the same methods would have little chance of yielding the necessary evidence (see People v Rabb, 16 NY3d 145 [2011]; People v Giraldo, 270 AD2d 97 , 98 [1st Dept 2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 934 [2000]; People v Acevedo, 261 AD2d 308 [1st Dept 1999], lv denied 94 AD2d 819 [1999]). *517 This Court has conducted an in camera review of the minutes of the hearing conducted pursuant to People v Darden ( 34 NY2d 177 [1974]).

2012However, he waived this claim by failing to assert it in his prior objections (see Mahunik v Harris, 236 AD2d 885 [1997]).

2008Defendant’s arguments for disclosure are similar to those he made in an unsuccessful motion before this Court, and we see no reason to revisit our prior ruling (see People v Merejildo, 305 AD2d 143 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 540 [2003]).

2007The record, including the plea minutes and the minutes of the hearing on the motion, establishes the voluntariness of the plea and fails to support any of defendant’s claims (see People v Wheeler, 289 AD2d 10 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 763 [2002]).

2004The minutes of a hearing held before another judge of this court, pursuant to People v Huntley ( 15 NY2d 72 [1965]), reveal that during that meeting, defendant acknowledged to Ms.; Lucas that he was the owner of the dog, that he knew the dog ¡had a tumor, and that he had not provided medical care to the dog because of his limited finances.

2001Review of defendant’s constitutional speedy trial claim is impeded by his failure to provide a complete set of the minutes of the hearing on his speedy trial motion or the minutes of the pertinent adjournments relative to the postarrest delay, all of which formed the basis for the court’s ruling (see, People v Castillo, 265 AD2d 188 , lv denied 94 NY2d 878 ).

2001In any event, an analysis of the Taranovich factors indicates that defendant was not deprived of his constitutional right to a speedy trial (People v Taranovich, 37 NY2d 442 ).

1998This court made findings of fact on the record as to the lack of others on the job or in the household to provide optional transportation, the inability or extreme difficulty to obtain alternative means of public or private transportation, and other requirements and factors set forth in People v Bridgman ( 163 Misc 2d 818 [the minutes of the hearing of January 26, 1998 are attached to the moving papers]).

1998Claimant’s assertion that it was error for a panel of two Board members to consider his appeal rather than a full Board panel has been examined and found to be lacking in merit (see, Matter of Larkin [Sweeney], 235 AD2d 869 ) as has his contention that the Board did not render its decision “promptly’ in accordance with Labor Law § 621 (3).

1997Essentially, the present situation is analogous to that in People v Watkins ( 157 AD2d 301, 312-314 ) in which it was ruled that a police officer’s overtime voucher, which mentioned the time of the incident, was not Rosario material.