individualized inquiry in New York

1998The capital sentencing proceeding must also rest on an individualized inquiry wherein the jury is required to consider the character and record of the individual offender and the circumstances of the particular offense (McCleskey v Kemp, supra, at 303).

1998The capital sentencing determination must also rest on an individualized inquiry wherein the jury is required to consider the character and record of the individual offender and the circumstances of the particular offense (McCleskey v Kemp, 481 US 279, 305 ).

2025"The determination of whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity requires an individualized assessment." (28 CFR 35.108 [d] [1] [vi]; 29 CFR 1630.2 [j] [1] [iv] [same]; Alston , 679 Fed Appx at 172 ["Although the ADAAA makes the individualized assessment 'particularly simple and straightforward' for diseases like cancer, 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(ii), an individualized assessment must still take place."]; Hoffer v Inch , 382 F Supp 3d 1288, 1297, 1298 n 6 [ND FL 2019], revd on other grounds 973 F3d 1263 [11th Cir 2020] [decertifying class as to an ADA claim, because "an AD

2025"The determination of whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity requires an individualized assessment." (28 CFR 35.108 [d] [1] [vi]; 29 CFR 1630.2 [j] [1] [iv] [same]; Alston , 679 Fed Appx at 172 ["Although the ADAAA makes the individualized assessment 'particularly simple and straightforward' for diseases like cancer, 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2 (j)(3)(ii), an individualized assessment must still take place."]; Hoffer v Inch , 382 F Supp 3d 1288, 1297, 1298 n 6 [ND FL 2019], revd on other grounds 973 F3d 1263 [11th Cir 2020] [decertifying class as to an ADA claim, because "an A

2023Further, although juvenile delinquency adjudications may not be considered as crimes in assessing points for criminal history in the RAI, the underlying facts could properly be considered by County Court in determining whether to depart from the presumptive risk level ( see People v Updyke, 133 AD3d 1063, 1064 [3d Dept 2015]; People v Shaffer , 129 AD3d 54, 55-56 [3d Dept 2015]). [FN2] Lastly, the RAI addresses only " prior criminal history"; "concurrent or subsequent criminal history is not covered . . . [and] may [provide] the basis for an upward departure" (Sex Offender Registration Act: Ri

2023Further, although juvenile delinquency adjudications may not be considered as crimes in assessing points for criminal history in the RAI, the underlying facts could properly be considered by County Court in determining whether to depart from the presumptive risk level ( see People v Updyke, 133 AD3d 1063, 1064 [3d Dept 2015]; People v Shaffer , 129 AD3d 54, 55-56 [3d Dept 2015]). [FN2] Lastly, the RAI addresses only " prior criminal history"; "concurrent or subsequent criminal history is not covered . . . [and] may [provide] the basis for an upward departure" (Sex Offender Registration Act: Ri

2004The court properly exercised its discretion by conducting this individualized inquiry, which adequately addressed the situation (see People v Dawson, 302 AD2d 744, 745 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 561 [2003]).

1976The standard for determination of the threshold amount, by contrast, is 'the reasonable and customary charges for * * * services necessarily performed’ (§ 671, subd 4, par [b]; italics supplied), a general standard in the application of which payments actually made by the particular claimant will not be determinative” (Montgomery v Daniels, supra, p 65).