qualitative analysis in New York

2023Indeed, "[a]pplying a quantitative rather than a qualitative analysis of an informant's reliability places a burden on the police in using confidential informants not contemplated by the standard articulated by the Court of Appeals, of 'some minimum, reasonable showing that the informant was reliable' " ( People v Proctor , 155 AD2d 624, 625 [2d Dept 1989], lv denied 75 NY2d 923 [1990], quoting Griminger , 71 NY2d at 639 ; see Walters , 187 AD2d at 473).

1993Although the majority — unjustifiably, in my view — suggests that the detective’s affidavit is unclear as to whether the three arrests involved separate transactions, we have recently held that "[ajpplying a quantitative rather than a qualitative analysis of an informant’s reliability places a burden on the police in using confidential informants not contemplated by the standard articulated by the Court of Appeals of 'some minimum reasonable showing that the informant was reliable’ ” (People v Proctor, 155 AD2d 624, 625 , quoting People v Griminger, 71 NY2d 635, 639 ; see also, People v Walter

2007For that the court looks to plaintiffs deposition testimony where he stated the injury bothers him because “When I bend down the knee hurts.” This minor physical limitation is not significant enough under a qualitative standard, even when viewed with an objective quantitative assessment that plaintiff suffered a knee injury as a result of the accident (cf. Pianka v Pereira, 24 AD3d 1084 [2005]).

2007For that the court looks to plaintiffs deposition testimony where he stated the injury bothers him because “When I bend down the knee hurts.” This minor physical limitation is not significant enough under a qualitative standard, even when viewed with an objective quantitative assessment that plaintiff suffered a knee injury as a result of the accident (cf. Pianka v Pereira, 24 AD3d 1084 [2005]).

2007Neither the letter/affirmation or the unaffirmed report sets forth the normal range of motion for comparison purposes (see Yashayev v Rodriguez, 28 AD3d 651 [2006]) or expresses a qualitative analysis regarding the significance of the alleged limitation (Toure v Avis, supra).

2007Moreover, this Department holds that when plaintiff’s examining medical provider impermissibly relies upon unsworn or unaffirmed reports of a hospital and other medical profes sionals, his affidavit fails to raise an issue of fact (Moore v Sarwar, 29 AD3d 752 [2006]).

2007Neither the letter/affirmation or the unaffirmed report sets forth the normal range of motion for comparison purposes (see Yashayev v Rodriguez, 28 AD3d 651 [2006]) or expresses a qualitative analysis regarding the significance of the alleged limitation (Toure v Avis, supra).

1995Nor was it required that the present sample be compared against a known standard (People v Rolon, 172 AD2d 252, 253 , lv denied 78 NY2d 926 ).

1995The chemist’s conclusions were not invalidated by the failure to perform a qualitative analysis since there was no element of weight in the crime charged (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]; see, People v Diaz, 157 AD2d 531 , lv denied 75 NY2d 918 ; People v Rodriguez, 203 AD2d 92 ).

1985(Goodman v Ramirez, 100 Misc 2d 881 ; Hickey v Bomark Fabrics, 111 Misc 2d 812 , affd 120 Misc 2d 597 ; Matter of Romanow v Heller, 121 Misc 2d 886 ; Nelson v Yates, 127 Misc 2d 234 .) These courts’ construction of the words "substantial rehabilitation” in the context of ETPA ranged from the strict quantitative test applied in Hickey to the liberal qualitative standard enunciated in Nelson .

1985(Goodman v Ramirez, 100 Misc 2d 881 ; Hickey v Bomark Fabrics, 111 Misc 2d 812 , affd 120 Misc 2d 597 ; Matter of Romanow v Heller, 121 Misc 2d 886 ; Nelson v Yates, 127 Misc 2d 234 .) These courts’ construction of the words "substantial rehabilitation” in the context of ETPA ranged from the strict quantitative test applied in Hickey to the liberal qualitative standard enunciated in Nelson .

1985In Hickey (supra) the trial court held that "[ajbsent unusual circumstances * * * a rehabilitation which does not at least double the number of family units in the building cannot be deemed a substantial rehabilitation of the building within the meaning of section 5 (subd a, par [5])”.

1985(Goodman v Ramirez, 100 Misc 2d 881 ; Hickey v Bomark Fabrics, 111 Misc 2d 812 , affd 120 Misc 2d 597 ; Matter of Romanow v Heller, 121 Misc 2d 886 ; Nelson v Yates, 127 Misc 2d 234 .) These courts’ construction of the words "substantial rehabilitation” in the context of ETPA ranged from the strict quantitative test applied in Hickey to the liberal qualitative standard enunciated in Nelson .

1985(Goodman v Ramirez, 100 Misc 2d 881 ; Hickey v Bomark Fabrics, 111 Misc 2d 812 , affd 120 Misc 2d 597 ; Matter of Romanow v Heller, 121 Misc 2d 886 ; Nelson v Yates, 127 Misc 2d 234 .) These courts’ construction of the words "substantial rehabilitation” in the context of ETPA ranged from the strict quantitative test applied in Hickey to the liberal qualitative standard enunciated in Nelson .

1985(Goodman v Ramirez, 100 Misc 2d 881 ; Hickey v Bomark Fabrics, 111 Misc 2d 812 , affd 120 Misc 2d 597 ; Matter of Romanow v Heller, 121 Misc 2d 886 ; Nelson v Yates, 127 Misc 2d 234 .) These courts’ construction of the words "substantial rehabilitation” in the context of ETPA ranged from the strict quantitative test applied in Hickey to the liberal qualitative standard enunciated in Nelson .