concern inquiry in New York

2021International Shoe crystallized the two categories of personal jurisdiction that we now recognize, “general or all-purpose jurisdiction[] and specific or case-linked jurisdiction” (Goodyear, 564 US at 919 ).

2019After International Shoe , courts began to differentiate between general all-purpose jurisdiction and specific case-linked jurisdiction ( see Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S. A. v Brown , 564 US at 919 ).

2021“Following International Shoe, ‘the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation, rather than the mutually exclusive sovereignty of the [s]tates on which the rules of Pennoyer rest, became the central concern of the inquiry into personal jurisdiction’” (Daimler, 571 US at 126 , quoting Shaffer v Heitner, 433 US 186, 204 [1977]; see Keane, 94 NY2d at 265 [“To satisfy the jurisdictional basis there must be a constitutionally adequate connection between the defendant, the (s)tate(,) and the action”]).

2019"Following International Shoe , the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation, rather than the mutually exclusive sovereignty of the States on which the rules of Pennoyer rest, became the central concern of the inquiry into personal jurisdiction'" ( Daimler AG v Bauman , 571 US at 126 , quoting Shaffer v Heitner , 433 US at 204 ).

2021Here, defendant raised a concern that defense counsel had not been to see him and requested new counsel because he "believe[d] there's a conflict of interest." We agree with the majority that defendant arguably made a "seemingly serious request[]" for new counsel, particularly where the record reflects that the parties were temporarily confused at that time over the existence of a separate burglary charge ( id. ; cf. People v Barnes , 156 AD3d 1417 , 1418 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 31 NY3d 1078 [2018]).

2021In our opinion, however, the court did make a "minimal inquiry" into "the nature of the disagreement or its potential for resolution" ( Sides , 75 NY2d at 825 ; see also People v Brady , 192 AD3d 1557, 1558 [4th Dept 2021]).

2021Here, defendant raised a concern that defense counsel had not been to see him and requested new counsel because he "believe[d] there's a conflict of interest." We agree with the majority that defendant arguably made a "seemingly serious request[]" for new counsel, particularly where the record reflects that the parties were temporarily confused at that time over the existence of a separate burglary charge ( id. ; cf. People v Barnes , 156 AD3d 1417 , 1418 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 31 NY3d 1078 [2018]).

2016The doctrine recognizes that it is the court, not counsel, that is best situated - 6 - - 7 - No. 74 to assure that the correct procedure is followed when a note requesting instruction issues from a deliberating jury, and that when the court discharges its core obligations there will be no opportunity for gamesmanship of the sort feared" (Nealon, 26 NY3d at 168-169 ).3 In defendant's case, while the court was discussing with counsel and the prosecutor its response to pending substantive jury notes, the court received indication that the jury had reached a verdict.

2016The doctrine recognizes that it is the court, not counsel, that is best situated to assure that the correct procedure is followed when a note requesting instruction issues from a deliberating jury, and that when the court discharges its core obligations there will be no opportunity for gamesmanship of the sort feared” (Nealon, 26 NY3d at 168-169 ). 3 In defendant’s case, while the court was discussing with counsel and the prosecutor its response to pending substantive jury notes, the court received indication that the jury had reached a verdict.

2015We agree with the conclusion reached in Melendez , that the standard charge is misleading unless a supplemental charge is given on the meaning of “initial aggressor” in the defense-of-another scenario (see id. at 201-202 ).

1984(See Crowe v Liquid Carbonic Co., 208 NY 396 .) There is also the concern that if the clause in the contract be deemed an effective waiver, such “waivers” will rapidly find their way into all nursing home contracts, thereby rendering the public’s protection of Medicaid re cipients and their families totally ineffective.

1984(See Wood Co. v Morgan, 291 NY 422, 426 .) Perhaps the court’s concern is best exemplified by the manner in which plaintiff’s own representatives described the effect of the contract.

1983Careful reading of those cases that have mentioned the availability of other remedies reveals that the actual concern was the standard for reviewing the exercise of discretion in dismissing an action (see, e.g., Gaynor v Rockefeller, 15 NY2d 120, 132 ; Rockland, Light & Power Co. v City of New York, 289 NY 45, 50-51 ).

1983Careful reading of those cases that have mentioned the availability of other remedies reveals that the actual concern was the standard for reviewing the exercise of discretion in dismissing an action (see, e.g., Gaynor v Rockefeller, 15 NY2d 120, 132 ; Rockland, Light & Power Co. v City of New York, 289 NY 45, 50-51 ).

1977Since International Shoe Co. v Washington ( 326 US 310, 317 ), the inquiry into a State’s jurisdiction over a foreign defendant depends on whether there have been "such contacts of the * * * [defendant] with the state of the forum as make it reasonable, in the context of our federal system of government, to require the * * * [defendant] to defend the particular suit which is brought there.” As the Supreme Court recently said: "Thus, the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation, rather than the mutually exclusive sovereignty of the States on which the rules of Pennoyer [P

1977Since International Shoe Co. v Washington ( 326 US 310, 317 ), the inquiry into a State’s jurisdiction over a foreign defendant depends on whether there have been "such contacts of the * * * [defendant] with the state of the forum as make it reasonable, in the context of our federal system of government, to require the * * * [defendant] to defend the particular suit which is brought there.” As the Supreme Court recently said: "Thus, the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation, rather than the mutually exclusive sovereignty of the States on which the rules of Pennoyer [P