should conduct hearing in New York

2023Further, the "least biased person available should be appointed" ( Kley v Abell , 483 SW2d at 628 ), and the court should conduct a hearing to determine whether a "less interested" interpreter is available ( State in Interest of R.R. , 79 NJ at 119, 398 A2d at 87 [internal quotation marks omitted]) and to ensure that the potential interpreter "would give an accurate and unbiased translation" ( State v Van Tran , 864 SW2d at 476 ; see Matter of James L. , 143 AD2d at 534 ).

2023Further, the "least biased person available should be appointed" ( Kley v Abell , 483 SW2d at 628 ), and the court should conduct a hearing to determine whether a "less interested" interpreter is available ( State in Interest of R.R. , 79 NJ at 119, 398 A2d at 87 [internal quotation marks omitted]) and to ensure that the potential interpreter "would give an accurate and unbiased translation" ( State v Van Tran , 864 SW2d at 476 ; see Matter of James L. , 143 AD2d at 534 ).

2001When a defendant raises “the voluntariness of an admission made to a private person who, it is also claimed, was acting as a police agent, the court should conduct a hearing” (People v Mirenda, 23 NY2d 439, 449 ; see also, Matter of Luis M., 83 NY2d 226, 230-231 ).

1996Thus, the order is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a hearing on the matter (see, Teichner v W & J Holsteins, supra).

1996Under such circumstances, the court should conduct a hearing to determine the fee to which the discharged attorney is entitled for his or her work (see, Teichner v W & J Holsteins, supra).

1994Should this issue arise again, the court should conduct an inquiry into the matter and, if warranted, afford the defendant an opportunity to adduce evidentiary support for his claim (see generally, CPL 400.21; People v Chestnut, 188 AD2d 480 ; People v Davis, 144 AD2d 688 ).

1994Should this issue arise again, the court should conduct an inquiry into the matter and, if warranted, afford the defendant an opportunity to adduce evidentiary support for his claim (see generally, CPL 400.21; People v Chestnut, 188 AD2d 480 ; People v Davis, 144 AD2d 688 ).

1987(See, Matter of Miller v Sullivan, 123 Misc 2d 1039 .) At such a hearing, the principles discussed require that the prosecution have the burden of introducing proof and the burden of persuasion. 5 APPLICATION The defendant has adequately met his burden of going forward.

1984Furthermore, the court should conduct a hearing to determine if petitioner’s application for counsel fees is warranted (Roscini v Roscini, 45 AD2d 254 ).

1983Prior to trial the court should conduct a hearing to determine “the extent of the witness’s prehypnotic recollection (which would establish the boundaries of admissible testimony) and whether the hypnosis was so impermissibly suggestive as to require exclusion of in-court testimony with respect to such prehypnotic recollection” (People v Hughes, supra, p 546 ).

1977If, in the exercise of its discretion, the court should order delivery of the certificate upon the posting of security, as in Goldman (supra), it must decide who will post the security and also establish the amount thereof by making some assessment of the nature and extent of the legal services performed.