criticism defense in New York

1932Notwithstanding the criticism to which the rule has been subjected [Dickerson v. Sheehy, 156 App. Div. 101 ; affd., 209 N. Y. 592 ], we recognize the force of the rule and have not hesitated to give it effect when to do so aids in the discovery of the intention of the testator.” Since by the terms of the present will the children of Lewis were direct remaindermen of this trust, it is obvious that the action of the trustee in distributing the corpus to them in equal shares was correct.

1920Notwithstanding the criticism to which the rule has been subjected [Dickerson v. Sheehy, 156 App. Div. 101 ; affd., 209 N. Y. 592 ], we recognize the force of the rule and have not hesitated to give it effect when to do so aids in the discovery of the intention of the testator.” It is well settled that the law favors the vesting of estates.

1932Notwithstanding the criticism to which the rule has been subjected [Dickerson v. Sheehy, 156 App. Div. 101 ; affd., 209 N. Y. 592 ], we recognize the force of the rule and have not hesitated to give it effect when to do so aids in the discovery of the intention of the testator.” Since by the terms of the present will the children of Lewis were direct remaindermen of this trust, it is obvious that the action of the trustee in distributing the corpus to them in equal shares was correct.

1920Notwithstanding the criticism to which the rule has been subjected [Dickerson v. Sheehy, 156 App. Div. 101 ; affd., 209 N. Y. 592 ], we recognize the force of the rule and have not hesitated to give it effect when to do so aids in the discovery of the intention of the testator.” It is well settled that the law favors the vesting of estates.

2015People v Martin, 33 AD3d 1024, 1025 [2006] [conviction affirmed upon a finding that the trial court’s criticism of defense counsel’s conduct in front of the jury was “justified” given “defense counsel’s persistent disregard for the court’s evidentiary rulings”]; People v Troy, 162 AD2d 744 [1990] [same]), even where the trial court held defense counsel in summary contempt in the jury’s presence (People v Cuba, 154 AD2d 703, 704 [1989] [conviction affirmed where the court’s actions, including holding defense counsel in summary contempt of court, “were provoked (among other things) by defense co

2015Further, in such contexts, courts have concluded that the “potential prejudice to [a] defendant [i]s minimized by the trial court’s instructions to the jury that the court had no opinion about the evidence” (People v Marston, 71 AD3d 789, 790 [2010]; People v Man Xing Guo, 271 AD2d 700 [2000] [same]; see also People v Martin, 33 AD3d at 1025 [“any potential prejudice to the defendant (resulting from the trial court’s alleged denigration of defense counsel before the jury) was minimized by the trial court’s instructions to the jury that it had no opinion about the case, and that the jury was no

2006The court properly made inquiry of both jurors, and just as properly concluded there was no basis upon which to set aside the verdict (see People v Rodriguez, 100 NY2d 30 [2003]).

2005In particular, the Court explained that by framing the question presented as whether homosexuals have a fundamental right to engage in sodomy (see 478 US at 191 ), the Bowers court misapprehended the issue to be addressed (see Lawrence, 539 US at 566-567 ).

2005In particular, the Court explained that by framing the question presented as whether homosexuals have a fundamental right to engage in sodomy (see 478 US at 191 ), the Bowers court misapprehended the issue to be addressed (see Lawrence, 539 US at 566-567 ).

1996In any event, were we to review the claim, we would find that the trial court’s criticism of defense counsel did not reflect bias against defendant, but was rather an appropriate reaction to the improper conduct of counsel (People v Valente, 161 AD2d 821, 822 , lv denied 76 NY2d 867 ).

1920Thus in Hersee v. Simpson ( 154 N. Y. 496, 500 ) the court said: “ The rule is well settled in this State that a remainder is not to be considered as contingent in any case where, consistently with the intention of the testator, it may be construed as being vested.” An examination of paragraphs “ Fourth ” and “ Eighth ” of the will above quoted discloses that the testator thereby provided that if his sister Jeannie McKewan should predecease him then the .four-twenty-seconds of his estate, by article “ Fifth ” of the will, shall at once be paid over to his “ next heirs,” meaning of course, thos