patent error in New York

1998In Seminole Tribe v Florida (supra), the United States Supreme Court merely held that the 11th Amendment prevents a private party from suing a State in Federal court, not that Federal statutes do not apply equally to both non-State and State defendants (see, Idaho v Coeur d’Alene Tribe, 521 US 261, 269-270 ; Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v Halderman, 465 US 89, 99-100 ).

1998In Seminole Tribe v Florida (supra), the United States Supreme Court merely held that the 11th Amendment prevents a private party from suing a State in Federal court, not that Federal statutes do not apply equally to both non-State and State defendants (see, Idaho v Coeur d’Alene Tribe, 521 US 261, 269-270 ; Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v Halderman, 465 US 89, 99-100 ).

1998The patent error in the State’s analysis is that it fails to account for the fact that “the Eleventh Amendment deals only with federal jurisdiction to hear suits against the states, not with the states’ immunity from suit in any forum” (Bartlett v Bowen, 816 F2d 695, 710; see, Nevada v Hall, 440 US 410, 420-421 ; Hufford v Rodgers, 912 F2d 1338, 1340-1341, cert denied 499 US 921 ; Harrington v Grayson, 764 F Supp 464, 470 ).

1998The patent error in the State’s analysis is that it fails to account for the fact that “the Eleventh Amendment deals only with federal jurisdiction to hear suits against the states, not with the states’ immunity from suit in any forum” (Bartlett v Bowen, 816 F2d 695, 710; see, Nevada v Hall, 440 US 410, 420-421 ; Hufford v Rodgers, 912 F2d 1338, 1340-1341, cert denied 499 US 921 ; Harrington v Grayson, 764 F Supp 464, 470 ).

1998In Seminole Tribe v Florida (supra), the United States Supreme Court merely held that the 11th Amendment prevents a private party from suing a State in Federal court, not that Federal statutes do not apply equally to both non-State and State defendants (see, Idaho v Coeur d’Alene Tribe, 521 US 261, 269-270 ; Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v Halderman, 465 US 89, 99-100 ).

1989The court rejected this argument, at least with respect to the Category 3 employees who were on the Senate payroll only for the duration of the 1986 campaign, holding, "It is a patent violation of our State Constitution [to use the Senate payroll to compensate a person who has performed] work which is of no value to any purpose but the election of a political candidate” (supra, 139 Misc 2d, at 952 ).

1989Since a prosecution arising from the payments made to these employees would neither evince a "lack of respect for the Legislature” nor necessitate "undue intervention into” the legitimate sphere of legislative prerogatives, the court ruled that the counts pertaining to these employees did not raise separation of powers principles, including the political question doctrine as set forth in Baker v Carr ( 369 US 186, 217 ).

1983Corp., 87 AD2d 211 ; Ciaccio v Housman, 97 Misc 2d 367 ; De Falco v Long Is.

1983Corp., 87 AD2d 211 ; Ciaccio v Housman, 97 Misc 2d 367 ; De Falco v Long Is.

1969No verbal manipulation or use of a benign label can convert a four-year commitment following conviction into a civil proceeding. [Case cited.] The Government’s burden in a juvenile case, therefore, is to prove all elements of the offense ‘ beyond a reasonable doubt, ’ just as in a prosecution against an adult. * * * In practical importance to a person charged with crime the insistence upon a high degree of proof ranks as high as any other protection. * * *. # * * “ It would appear a patent violation of due process and equal protection of the law if a juvenile were found to have committed a cri

1963In our opinion, coram nobis does not lie to cure a patent error as to sentence in the judgment of conviction, from which no appeal was taken (People v. Sadness, 300 N. Y. 69 ).

1948A patent is a privilege limited to the invention defined and is granted in furtherance of the public policy to promote the progress of science and useful arts (Mercoid Corp. v. Mid-Continent Co., 320 U. S. 661 ).

1917In City of New York v. Dowd Lumber Co. ( 140 App. Div. 358 ) there was a patent error in the extension of figures.

1917In Mills Power Co. v. Mohawk Hydro-Electric Co. ( 155 App. Div. 869 ) parol evidence was received that, in the words of Mr. Justice Kellogg, “enlarges the horizon of the interpreter” of a grant.

1911It follows, therefore, that the demurrer upon the first ground mentioned must be sustained, and it is unnecessary to consider whether the facts alleged are sufficient to constitute the several causes of action attempted to be stated (Higgins v. Crichton, 11 Daly, 114 ; s. c., 98 N. Y. 626 ; Todaro v. Somerville Realty Co., 138 App. Div. 1 , 122 N. Y.

1911It follows, therefore, that the demurrer upon the first ground mentioned must be sustained, and it is unnecessary to consider whether the facts alleged are sufficient to constitute the several causes of action attempted to be stated (Higgins v. Crichton, 11 Daly, 114 ; s. c., 98 N. Y. 626 ; Todaro v. Somerville Realty Co., 138 App. Div. 1 , 122 N. Y.

1911It follows, therefore, that the demurrer upon the first ground mentioned must be sustained, and it is unnecessary to consider whether the facts alleged are sufficient to constitute the several causes of action attempted to be stated (Higgins v. Crichton, 11 Daly, 114 ; s. c., 98 N. Y. 626 ; Todaro v. Somerville Realty Co., 138 App. Div. 1 , 122 N. Y.