emerging rule in New York

1991Respondent relies upon the emerging rule which prohibits a geographic move that would effectively deprive a parent of regular access to a child (see, Weiss v Weiss, 52 NY2d 170 ).

1983The emerging rule in these cases is that a geographic move will not be allowed to effectively deprive a parent of regular access to a child (see Weiss v Weiss, 52 NY2d 170 ; Daghir v Daghir, 82 AD2d 191 , affd 56 NY2d 938 ; Strahl v Strahl, 66 AD2d 571 , affd 49 NY2d 1036 ).

2000(See, e.g., People v Schneider, 139 Ill App 3d 222, 487 NE2d 379 ; State v Zeien, 505 NW2d 498 [Iowa 1993]; see generally, People v Kheyfets, 174 Misc 2d, supra, at 522-523 [collecting authorities].) Person (supra) appears to be wrongly decided.

2000(See, People v Kheyfets, 174 Misc 2d 516 [Sup Ct, Kings County 1997], supra; Lutz and Slye, Where Criminal Mischief is Not a Crime, NYLJ, Oct. 31, 1997, at 1, col 1.) Person is also at odds with what appears to be the emerging rule in most other States where courts have held that a spouse can be liable for criminal mischief (as defined by statutes worded quite similarly to New York’s criminal mischief statute) for the destruction of jointly owned marital property.

2000(See, e.g., People v Schneider, 139 Ill App 3d 222, 487 NE2d 379 ; State v Zeien, 505 NW2d 498 [Iowa 1993]; see generally, People v Kheyfets, 174 Misc 2d, supra, at 522-523 [collecting authorities].) Person (supra) appears to be wrongly decided.

1990We recognize the emerging rule which accords no deference to an administrative officer’s interpretation of a statute in cases of " 'pure statutory reading and analysis’ ” (Matter of De Mayo v Rensselaer Polytech Inst., 74 NY2d 459, 462 , quoting Kurcsics v Merchants Mut.

1987If an error of law is committed by the hearing court which directly causes the People to fail to offer potentially critical evidence a rehearing should be ordered so that the evidence may be presented” (People v Havelka, supra, at 643 ).

1983The emerging rule in these cases is that a geographic move will not be allowed to effectively deprive a parent of regular access to a child (see Weiss v Weiss, 52 NY2d 170 ; Daghir v Daghir, 82 AD2d 191 , affd 56 NY2d 938 ; Strahl v Strahl, 66 AD2d 571 , affd 49 NY2d 1036 ).

1983The emerging rule in these cases is that a geographic move will not be allowed to effectively deprive a parent of regular access to a child (see Weiss v Weiss, 52 NY2d 170 ; Daghir v Daghir, 82 AD2d 191 , affd 56 NY2d 938 ; Strahl v Strahl, 66 AD2d 571 , affd 49 NY2d 1036 ).

1983However, as in all custody matters, there are no absolutes and each situation must be resolved on a case-by-case basis after consideration of the totality of the circumstances with special emphasis being placed upon the best interests of the child and the stability of the home environment (Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 95 ; Munford v Shaw, 84 AD2d 810, 811 ).

1983The emerging rule in these cases is that a geographic move will not be allowed to effectively deprive a parent of regular access to a child (see Weiss v Weiss, 52 NY2d 170 ; Daghir v Daghir, 82 AD2d 191 , affd 56 NY2d 938 ; Strahl v Strahl, 66 AD2d 571 , affd 49 NY2d 1036 ).

1983The emerging rule in these cases is that a geographic move will not be allowed to effectively deprive a parent of regular access to a child (see Weiss v Weiss, 52 NY2d 170 ; Daghir v Daghir, 82 AD2d 191 , affd 56 NY2d 938 ; Strahl v Strahl, 66 AD2d 571 , affd 49 NY2d 1036 ).

1983However, as in all custody matters, there are no absolutes and each situation must be resolved on a case-by-case basis after consideration of the totality of the circumstances with special emphasis being placed upon the best interests of the child and the stability of the home environment (Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 95 ; Munford v Shaw, 84 AD2d 810, 811 ).

1979(Real Property Law, § 235-c; see 1 Rasch, Landlord and Tenant [1978 Supp], § 118.5; Weidman v Tomaselli, 81 Misc 2d 328 , affd 84 Misc 2d 782 .) Two other considerations not referred to by counsel mitigate against dismissing the counterclaims on the basis of the waiver provision in the lease.

1979(Real Property Law, § 235-c; see 1 Rasch, Landlord and Tenant [1978 Supp], § 118.5; Weidman v Tomaselli, 81 Misc 2d 328 , affd 84 Misc 2d 782 .) Two other considerations not referred to by counsel mitigate against dismissing the counterclaims on the basis of the waiver provision in the lease.

1973If the same limits are apparent upon the face of the act, unaided by extrinsic evidence, or are so notorious or obvious as to be the subject of judicial notice, it is also local in its terms Two years later the Court of Appeals rendered its decision in Adler v. Deegan ( 251 N. Y. 467 [1929]), which is still regarded as the key determination in the State-home rule controversy relating to respective fields of power.