constitutional right violation in New York

2015Group v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 295 AD2d 489 , 490 [2d Dept 2002] [“because the plaintiffs failed to plead the existence of a specific policy or custom which deprived them of a constitutional right in violation of 42 USC § 1983 , that cause of action must be dismissed as well”]; Bryant v City of New York, 188 AD2d 445, 446 [2d Dept 1992] [“Given the complete absence of any factual allegations in the complaint regarding the alleged ‘policies’ of the municipal defendants which led to the officers’ conduct, or evidencing their approval or ‘ratification’ of this conduct, the plaintiffs’ ca

2015Group v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 295 AD2d 489 , 490 [2d Dept 2002] [“because the plaintiffs failed to plead the existence of a specific policy or custom which deprived them of a constitutional right in violation of 42 USC § 1983 , that cause of action must be dismissed as well”]; Bryant v City of New York, 188 AD2d 445, 446 [2d Dept 1992] [“Given the complete absence of any factual allegations in the complaint regarding the alleged ‘policies’ of the municipal defendants which led to the officers’ conduct, or evidencing their approval or ‘ratification’ of this conduct, the plaintiffs’ ca

2008As a preliminary matter, documents should be produced unless the production would be violative of a constitutional right or a privilege or would be palpably improper (see Hertz Corp. v Avis, Inc., 106 AD2d 246 [1985]).

2002Moreover, because the plaintiffs failed to plead the existence of a specific policy or custom which deprived them of a constitutional right in violation of 42 USC § 1983 , that cause of action must be dismissed as well (see Holmberg v Sheriffs Off., County of Orange, 279 AD2d 551 ; Graham v City of New York, 279 AD2d 435, 436 ; Liu v New York City Police Dept., 216 AD2d 67 , cert denied 517 US 1167 ; Pang Hung Leung v City of New York, 216 AD2d 10, 11 ).

2002Moreover, because the plaintiffs failed to plead the existence of a specific policy or custom which deprived them of a constitutional right in violation of 42 USC § 1983 , that cause of action must be dismissed as well (see Holmberg v Sheriffs Off., County of Orange, 279 AD2d 551 ; Graham v City of New York, 279 AD2d 435, 436 ; Liu v New York City Police Dept., 216 AD2d 67 , cert denied 517 US 1167 ; Pang Hung Leung v City of New York, 216 AD2d 10, 11 ).

2002Moreover, because the plaintiffs failed to plead the existence of a specific policy or custom which deprived them of a constitutional right in violation of 42 USC § 1983 , that cause of action must be dismissed as well (see Holmberg v Sheriffs Off., County of Orange, 279 AD2d 551 ; Graham v City of New York, 279 AD2d 435, 436 ; Liu v New York City Police Dept., 216 AD2d 67 , cert denied 517 US 1167 ; Pang Hung Leung v City of New York, 216 AD2d 10, 11 ).

2002Moreover, because the plaintiffs failed to plead the existence of a specific policy or custom which deprived them of a constitutional right in violation of 42 USC § 1983 , that cause of action must be dismissed as well (see Holmberg v Sheriffs Off., County of Orange, 279 AD2d 551 ; Graham v City of New York, 279 AD2d 435, 436 ; Liu v New York City Police Dept., 216 AD2d 67 , cert denied 517 US 1167 ; Pang Hung Leung v City of New York, 216 AD2d 10, 11 ).

1995However, plaintiffs failure to specifically plead the existence of an official policy or custom which deprived him of a constitutional right in violation of 42 USC § 1983 is fatal to his claim against the municipality (Jackson v Police Dept., 192 AD2d 641, 642 , lv denied 82 NY2d 658 , cert denied — US —, 114 S Ct 1370 ).

1995However, plaintiffs failure to specifically plead the existence of an official policy or custom which deprived him of a constitutional right in violation of 42 USC § 1983 is fatal to his claim against the municipality (Jackson v Police Dept., 192 AD2d 641, 642 , lv denied 82 NY2d 658 , cert denied — US —, 114 S Ct 1370 ).

1983The court having determined that the trial court’s failure to disqualify or further question the juror Moriah did not violate defendant’s statutory or constitutional rights to a fair trial by impartial jurors, in accord with due process of law, and the court further noting, as a matter of policy, that the Court of Appeals has recently held that efforts to undermine a jury verdict by systematically questioning the individual jurors long after they have been dismissed in hopes of discovering some form of misconduct should not be encouraged (see People v Friedgood, 58 NY2d 467 ), defendant’s moti

1976It is a purpose of the constitutional right to a hearing to provide an opportunity for a person to vindicate those claims.” Following the Roth formulation in Goss v Lopez ( 419 US 565, 573 ), the Supreme Court observed: "a state employee who under state law, or rules promulgated by state officials, has a legitimate claim of entitlement to continued employment absent sufficient cause for discharge may demand the procedural protections of due process.” Plaintiff, under both the Roth and Goss cases, can be said to have a protected "property” interest in his continued employment with the Rochester

1958And secondly, unlike the requirements specified in subdivision (a) of rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (see Mason v. United States, 250 F. 2d 704 ) the “ consent ” of the prosecution is not needed — indeed, in New York, there is no provision that the prosecution is entitled as a matter of right to be heard on the defendant’s application.