predicate claim in New York

2012Notably, MKS is allegedly the “sole marketer and distributor of Hi-Point firearms,” and Brown, who is now the president of MKS, was a high-level officer during the relevant time period. m In light of our conclusion that this action falls within the PLCAA’s predicate exception and therefore is not precluded by the Act ( 15 USC § 7903 [5] [A] [iii]; see A-1 Jewelry & Pawn, Inc., 247 FRD at 351; Smith & Wesson Corp., 875 NE2d at 434 ), we need not address plaintiffs’ further contention that this action falls within the PLCAA’s negligent entrustment or negligence per se exception (see § 7903 [5] [

2012Notably, MKS is allegedly the “sole marketer and distributor of Hi-Point firearms,” and Brown, who is now the president of MKS, was a high-level officer during the relevant time period. m In light of our conclusion that this action falls within the PLCAA’s predicate exception and therefore is not precluded by the Act ( 15 USC § 7903 [5] [A] [iii]; see A-1 Jewelry & Pawn, Inc., 247 FRD at 351; Smith & Wesson Corp., 875 NE2d at 434 ), we need not address plaintiffs’ further contention that this action falls within the PLCAA’s negligent entrustment or negligence per se exception (see § 7903 [5] [

2013Co., 64 AD3d 472, 476 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 709 [2009]).

2013Co., 64 AD3d 472, 476 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 709 [2009]).

1995The defendant’s contention that a violation of a New York City Police Department procedure cannot serve as a predicate for a claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-e is without merit (see, Galapo v City of New York, 219 AD2d 581 [decided herewith]; Martelli v City of New York, 219 AD2d 586 [decided herewith]).

1995We note that the City’s contention that a violation of a Patrol Guide procedure cannot serve as a predicate for a claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-e is without merit (see, Galapo v City of New York, 219 AD2d 581 [decided herewith]; Desmond v City of New York, 219 AD2d 576 [decided herewith]).

1993A prison disciplinary proceeding does not form the predicate for a claim of double jeopardy upon the indictment and trial of the inmate for alleged crimes based on acts on which the disciplinary proceeding was also based even if defendant loses good time (People v Briggs, 108 AD2d 1058 ).

1985This court has recently held in People v Briggs ( 108 AD2d 1058 ) that loss of inmate privileges does not form the predicate for a claim of double jeopardy upon an indictment and trial for a crime based on the acts in the underlying disciplinary charge.

1978Respondents’ separate motion to compel arbitration is based upon a clause in the corporate agreement which provides that "[i]n the event of any dispute between or among the parties” the "dispute shall be settled by arbitration.” It is well settled that where the stockholders of a corporation have entered into a broad arbitration agreement which subjects to arbitration issues which might be the predicate of a claim for dissolution, it is appropriate to stay the dissolution and direct arbitration (Matter of Siegel v 141 Bowery Corp., 80 Misc 2d 255 , affd 51 AD2d 209 ; Matter of Moskowitz v Surr

1968In our opinion, the broad compass of the stockholders’ agreement wherein and whereby “ [a]ny controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this contract or the ¡breach thereof ” was made arbitrable rendered subject to arbitration the issues on which it is claimed there is a deadlock of the five signing stockholders, four of whom are members of the board of directors, even though such issues might otherwise be the predicate of a claim for dissolution under section 1104 of the Business Corporation Law (Matter of Carl [Weissman], 263 App. Div. 887 [Second Dept.]; Matter of Zybert [Bab], 276

1978Respondents’ separate motion to compel arbitration is based upon a clause in the corporate agreement which provides that "[i]n the event of any dispute between or among the parties” the "dispute shall be settled by arbitration.” It is well settled that where the stockholders of a corporation have entered into a broad arbitration agreement which subjects to arbitration issues which might be the predicate of a claim for dissolution, it is appropriate to stay the dissolution and direct arbitration (Matter of Siegel v 141 Bowery Corp., 80 Misc 2d 255 , affd 51 AD2d 209 ; Matter of Moskowitz v Surr

1968In our opinion, the broad compass of the stockholders’ agreement wherein and whereby “ [a]ny controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this contract or the ¡breach thereof ” was made arbitrable rendered subject to arbitration the issues on which it is claimed there is a deadlock of the five signing stockholders, four of whom are members of the board of directors, even though such issues might otherwise be the predicate of a claim for dissolution under section 1104 of the Business Corporation Law (Matter of Carl [Weissman], 263 App. Div. 887 [Second Dept.]; Matter of Zybert [Bab], 276

1973In exercising his discretion to limit such cross-examination, the Trial Judge must require the cross-examiner to make a good-faith showing as a predicate for such inquiry (People v. Sorge, 301 N. Y. 198 , supra; People v. Alamo, 23 N Y 2d 630, supra).

1973(People v. Zabrocky, 26 N Y 2d 530; People v. Schwartzman, 24 N Y 2d 241, cert. den. 396 U. S. 846 ; People v. Alamo, 23 N Y 2d 630; People v. Sorge, 301 N. Y. 198 ; Langley v. Wadsworth, 99 N. Y. 61 .) Second: in limiting this right of cross-examination in his discretion, the Trial Judge must require the cross-examiner to make a good-faith showing as a predicate to such inquiry, and that in the absence of access to the personnel folders, defense counsel cannot show the required good faith (People v. Sorge; People v. Alamo, supra).

2026Additionally, the SAC alleges that the evidence at trial established that, among other things, (i) Curious had entered into the Disney Goldie and Bear Project with Disney pursuant to a Production Services Agreement (the Curious PSA); (ii) Korbelin, Grasic, Microseries, and Milk Barn were aware of the Curious PSA; (iii) Korbelin, Grasic, Microseries, and Milk Barn intentionally interfered with the Curious PSA by causing its wrongful transfer to Grasic’s shell companies, Microseries and Milk Barn, and by doing so committed fraud; (iv) the Defendants’ interference resulted in the termination of C

2025MEAN contends that the predicate exception does not apply to "laws of general applicability" like General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, which forbid "[d]eceptive acts or practices" (§ 349 [a]) and "[f]alse advertising" (§ 350) in the conduct of any commerce in New York ( see generally Ileto , 565 F3d at 1133-1138 ; City of New York v Beretta U.S.A.

2025MEAN contends that the predicate exception does not apply to "laws of general applicability" like General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, which forbid "[d]eceptive acts or practices" (§ 349 [a]) and "[f]alse advertising" (§ 350) in the conduct of any commerce in New York ( see generally Ileto , 565 F3d at 1133-1138 ; City of New York v Beretta U.S.A.

2025Discussion and Analysis The defendant, relying upon the Supreme Court's decision in Erlinger v United States , supra, moved to be sentenced as a first violent felony offender, arguing that pursuant to Erlinger, a jury, rather than a judge, must determine the defendant's predicate felony offender status and the tolling periods under PL § 70.04 (1) (b) (v). [FN5] Although the People consented to the predicate hearing, they argued that Erlinger did not establish a new constitutional rule, and therefore did not affect the constitutionality of New York's predicate felony offender sentencing scheme.

2025Discussion and Analysis The defendant, relying upon the Supreme Court's decision in Erlinger v United States , supra, moved to be sentenced as a first violent felony offender, arguing that pursuant to Erlinger , a jury, rather than a judge, must determine the defendant's predicate felony offender status and the tolling periods under PL § 70.04 (1) (b) (v). [FN5] Although the People consented to the predicate hearing, they argued that Erlinger did not establish a new constitutional rule, and therefore did not affect the constitutionality of New York's predicate felony offender sentencing scheme

2024LLC, 92 AD3d 474 [1st Dept 2012] [deeming abandoned any industrial code provisions that plaintiff did not address in opposition to summary judgment motion]).

2014Plaintiff further requested the court search the record in accordance with CPLR 3212(b) and grant her summary judgment on the question of liability under GML § 205-e. As relevant to this appeal, Supreme Court denied the motion in part, concluding Labor Law § 27-a (3) (a) (1) may serve as a predicate for a violation of GML § 205-e.3 The Appellate Division affirmed ( 109 AD3d 189 ) and granted defendants leave to appeal on a certified question whether the court properly affirmed the denial of defendants' summary judgment motion to dismiss plaintiff's GML § 205-e claim.

2014Plaintiff further requested the court search the record in accordance with CPLR 3212 (b) and grant her summary judgment on the question of liability under General Municipal Law § 205-e. As relevant to this appeal, Supreme Court denied the motion in part, concluding Labor Law § 27-a (3) (a) (1) may serve as a predicate for a violation of General Municipal Law § 205-e ( 30 Misc 3d 1230[A] , 2011 NY Slip Op 50286[U] [Sup Ct, Kings County 2011]). 3 The Appellate Division affirmed ( 109 AD3d 189 [2013]) and granted defendants leave to appeal on a certified question whether the court properly affirm