criminal law standard in New York

1991To the same effect, American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law of Torts [Negligence], §§ 431, 432, 433, 452.) See, also, Carlock v. Westchester Lighting Co. ( 268 NY 345 ) and American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law of Torts (Negligence), section 439.” In that respect, the criminal law rule of superseding cause is the same.

1991In People v McGee (31 Cal 2d 229, 243, 187 P2d 706, 714-715 ), the California Supreme Court held that the surgeon’s neglect, for more than 10 hours, grossly contrary to good surgical practice, to control the victim’s hemorrhage, was not a supervening cause of death: "[Defendant cannot com plain because no force intervened to save him from the natural consequence of his criminal act.

1989(See, Matter of King v McMickens, 120 AD2d 351, affd 69 NY2d 840 .) Here, reasonable suspicion was present based on petitioner’s numerous absences from work within a brief period and the physi dan’s opinion that her daimed asthmatic condition was not serious enough to explain the absences, together with the observations of the psychiatrist.

1989(See, Matter of King v McMickens, 120 AD2d 351, affd 69 NY2d 840 .) Here, reasonable suspicion was present based on petitioner’s numerous absences from work within a brief period and the physi dan’s opinion that her daimed asthmatic condition was not serious enough to explain the absences, together with the observations of the psychiatrist.

1982Citing Matter of Young ( 50 Misc 2d 271 ), the court held that “[t]he preponderance of evidence rule hence applies to the instant petition, both as to neglect and child abuse. * * * Due process is not violated by the application of the preponderance rule. * * * Child abuse and neglect cases are civil matters.

1982R. then turns to the “classic” holding that a State has the right to establish its own standards for the ultimate burden of persuasion citing Lavine v Milne ( 424 US 577, 585 ), wherein the court stated that: “[o]utside the criminal law area, where special concerns attend, the locus of the burden of persuasion is normally not an issue of federal constitutional moment.” In Matter of Fred S. (supra), the court was dealing with a challenge to the preponderance rule (Family Ct Act, § 1046, subd [b]), which sought to require the criminal law standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.

1977In Leary v United States ( 395 US 6, 36 ), the Supreme Court again had the occasion to set forth the constitutionally permissible application of a criminal law presumption.

1975"While a hearing might be appropriate in some cases, there is no requirement in section 816 that a hearing must be held where the court deems its processes inappropriate upon the face of the information and other papers before it” (People v Gemmill, 34 AD2d 177, 180 ).

1961Where there are two conflicting presumptions, the stronger one will prevail, viz.: presumption of innocence outweighing the presumption against suicide (People v. Creasy, 236 N. Y. 205 ).

1961A criminal law presumption attaches definite probative value to a specific act (People v. Hildebrandt, 308 N. Y. 397 ).

1947They must afford some comprehensive guide, rule or information as to what must be done and what must be avoided, to the end that the ordinary member of society may know how to comply with its requirements. ‘ Laws which create crime ought to be so explicit that all men subject to their penalties may know what acts it is their duty to avoid.’ (United States v. Brewer, 139 U. S. 278, 288 ; * * *) ” (People v. Grogan, 260 N. Y. 138, 145 , supra.) In the case at bar there is a direct causal relation between the delinquency and the adult act, which act itself violated an express provision of the Pen

1947They must afford some comprehensive guide, rule or information as to what must be done and what must be avoided, to the end that the ordinary member of society may know how to comply with its requirements. ‘ Laws which create crime ought to be so explicit that all men subject to their penalties may know what acts it is their duty to avoid.’ (United States v. Brewer, 139 U. S. 278, 288 ; * * *) ” (People v. Grogan, 260 N. Y. 138, 145 , supra.) In the case at bar there is a direct causal relation between the delinquency and the adult act, which act itself violated an express provision of the Pen