unauthorized violation in New York

1999Even were we to accept the People’s argument that the police request to search the trunk was the result of defendants’ invitation, we would find that this invitation followed the officers’ unauthorized inquiry (see, People v Hollman, 79 NY2d 181, 185 ) as to the presence of contraband in the car.

1995That combination "created a risk that the jury’s deliberative process would be 'unfairly skewed’ ” (id., at 1030, quoting People v Taylor, 76 NY2d 873, 874 ).

1987No plainly conferred specific approval for such alienation being provided by Laws of 1916 (ch 260), Buffalo’s action in discontinuing its park without prior legislative approval is an unauthorized violation of the sanctity of this long-recognized public trust (see, Williams v Gallatin, 229 NY 248 ; Brooklyn Park Commrs. v Armstrong, 45 NY2d 234 ; Aldrich v City of New York, 208 Misc 930 , affd 2 AD2d 760 ; American Dock Co. v City of New York, 174 Misc 813 , affd 261 App Div 1063 , affd 286 NY 658 ).

1987No plainly conferred specific approval for such alienation being provided by Laws of 1916 (ch 260), Buffalo’s action in discontinuing its park without prior legislative approval is an unauthorized violation of the sanctity of this long-recognized public trust (see, Williams v Gallatin, 229 NY 248 ; Brooklyn Park Commrs. v Armstrong, 45 NY2d 234 ; Aldrich v City of New York, 208 Misc 930 , affd 2 AD2d 760 ; American Dock Co. v City of New York, 174 Misc 813 , affd 261 App Div 1063 , affd 286 NY 658 ).

1987No plainly conferred specific approval for such alienation being provided by Laws of 1916 (ch 260), Buffalo’s action in discontinuing its park without prior legislative approval is an unauthorized violation of the sanctity of this long-recognized public trust (see, Williams v Gallatin, 229 NY 248 ; Brooklyn Park Commrs. v Armstrong, 45 NY2d 234 ; Aldrich v City of New York, 208 Misc 930 , affd 2 AD2d 760 ; American Dock Co. v City of New York, 174 Misc 813 , affd 261 App Div 1063 , affd 286 NY 658 ).

1987No plainly conferred specific approval for such alienation being provided by Laws of 1916 (ch 260), Buffalo’s action in discontinuing its park without prior legislative approval is an unauthorized violation of the sanctity of this long-recognized public trust (see, Williams v Gallatin, 229 NY 248 ; Brooklyn Park Commrs. v Armstrong, 45 NY2d 234 ; Aldrich v City of New York, 208 Misc 930 , affd 2 AD2d 760 ; American Dock Co. v City of New York, 174 Misc 813 , affd 261 App Div 1063 , affd 286 NY 658 ).

1987No plainly conferred specific approval for such alienation being provided by Laws of 1916 (ch 260), Buffalo’s action in discontinuing its park without prior legislative approval is an unauthorized violation of the sanctity of this long-recognized public trust (see, Williams v Gallatin, 229 NY 248 ; Brooklyn Park Commrs. v Armstrong, 45 NY2d 234 ; Aldrich v City of New York, 208 Misc 930 , affd 2 AD2d 760 ; American Dock Co. v City of New York, 174 Misc 813 , affd 261 App Div 1063 , affd 286 NY 658 ).

1987No plainly conferred specific approval for such alienation being provided by Laws of 1916 (ch 260), Buffalo’s action in discontinuing its park without prior legislative approval is an unauthorized violation of the sanctity of this long-recognized public trust (see, Williams v Gallatin, 229 NY 248 ; Brooklyn Park Commrs. v Armstrong, 45 NY2d 234 ; Aldrich v City of New York, 208 Misc 930 , affd 2 AD2d 760 ; American Dock Co. v City of New York, 174 Misc 813 , affd 261 App Div 1063 , affd 286 NY 658 ).

1945If the rule intends otherwise, it is ineffective; “ it cannot possess or have any greater application and force than the law itself and must be read in connection with it since the purpose and object of the rule must be to carry out the intent of the statute and conform thereto.” (Wattman v. Wolfson, 184 Misc. 520 , affd. 269 App. Div. 689 .) There is no requirement in section 135 of the Election Law for the consecutive numbering of election and assembly districts in a designating petition and a rule or ruling that there must be such consecutive numbering therein imposes an additional requirem

1945If the rule intends otherwise, it is ineffective; “ it cannot possess or have any greater application and force than the law itself and must be read in connection with it since the purpose and object of the rule must be to carry out the intent of the statute and conform thereto.” (Wattman v. Wolfson, 184 Misc. 520 , affd. 269 App. Div. 689 .) There is no requirement in section 135 of the Election Law for the consecutive numbering of election and assembly districts in a designating petition and a rule or ruling that there must be such consecutive numbering therein imposes an additional requirem

1928Robesch v. President, etc., 190 N. Y. 497 .) The case contains nothing to show that knowledge of petitioner’s claimed status as an exempt fireman was brought to the attention of his superior other than that, during the unauthorized hearing before the mayor, petitioner testified that, before becoming a member of the police force, he had been a fireman for five years and three months.