outset hearing in New York

2026"At the outset of the hearing . . . and without objection from the [father], the court took judicial notice of the prior orders and proceedings involving the parties, which was proper in any event" ( Matter of Hermann v Williams , 179 AD3d 1545, 1546 [4th Dept 2020]; see Matter of Gugino v Tsvasman , 118 AD3d 1341, 1342 [4th Dept 2014]).

2020At the outset of the hearing, upon the father's request and without objection from the mother, the court took judicial notice of the prior orders and proceedings involving the parties, which was proper in any event ( see Matter of Gugino v Tsvasman , 118 AD3d 1341, 1342 [4th Dept 2014]).

2024The burden of proof now shifts to Objectant to overcome the prima facie accuracy of the Interim Account and prove his objections ( see Matter of Cook , 177 AD3d 1214 [App. Div. 3rd Dept]; see also Rudin v. Heimlich , 34 AD3d 371 [App. Div. 1st Dept]).

2024The burden of proof now shifts to Objectant to overcome the prima facie accuracy of the Interim Account and prove his objections ( see Matter of Cook , 177 AD3d 1214 [App. Div. 3rd Dept]; see also Rudin v. Heimlich , 34 AD3d 371 [App. Div. 1st Dept]).

2013Contrary to defendant’s argument, we do not find County Court’s stern remarks at sentencing to be so “intemperate” that modification of the sentence is required (see People v Lopez, 51 AD3d 1210, 1211 [2008]).

2013Contrary to defendant’s argument, we do not find County Court’s stern remarks at sentencing to be so “intemperate” that modification of the sentence is required (see People v Lopez, 51 AD3d 1210, 1211 [2008]).

2013Thus, defense counsel’s negative response to County Court’s inquiry at the outset of the hearing as to whether “there [was] any legal basis in [counsel’s] knowledge to allow [defendant] to withdraw his plea of guilty” was clearly not an opinion on the merits of defendant’s pro se motion — which counsel had not yet reviewed — and, thus, counsel did not thereby take a position adverse to that of his client or affirmatively undermine the arguments that defendant sought to present to the court (see People v Mills, 45 AD3d at 895-896 ; People v Caple, 279 AD2d 635, 635-636 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d

2013Thus, defense counsel’s negative response to County Court’s inquiry at the outset of the hearing as to whether “there [was] any legal basis in [counsel’s] knowledge to allow [defendant] to withdraw his plea of guilty” was clearly not an opinion on the merits of defendant’s pro se motion — which counsel had not yet reviewed — and, thus, counsel did not thereby take a position adverse to that of his client or affirmatively undermine the arguments that defendant sought to present to the court (see People v Mills, 45 AD3d at 895-896 ; People v Caple, 279 AD2d 635, 635-636 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d

2013Thus, defense counsel’s negative response to County Court’s inquiry at the outset of the hearing as to whether “there [was] any legal basis in [counsel’s] knowledge to allow [defendant] to withdraw his plea of guilty” was clearly not an opinion on the merits of defendant’s pro se motion — which counsel had not yet reviewed — and, thus, counsel did not thereby take a position adverse to that of his client or affirmatively undermine the arguments that defendant sought to present to the court (see People v Mills, 45 AD3d at 895-896 ; People v Caple, 279 AD2d 635, 635-636 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d

2013Thus, defense counsel’s negative response to County Court’s inquiry at the outset of the hearing as to whether “there [was] any legal basis in [counsel’s] knowledge to allow [defendant] to withdraw his plea of guilty” was clearly not an opinion on the merits of defendant’s pro se motion — which counsel had not yet reviewed — and, thus, counsel did not thereby take a position adverse to that of his client or affirmatively undermine the arguments that defendant sought to present to the court (see People v Mills, 45 AD3d at 895-896 ; People v Caple, 279 AD2d 635, 635-636 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d

2026With respect to the merits, "[i]t is well established that alteration of an established custody arrangement will be ordered only upon a showing of a change in circumstances which reflects a real need for change to ensure the best interest[s] of the child" ( Matter of Austin v Wright , 151 AD3d 1861, 1862 [4th Dept 2017] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2026"At the outset of the hearing . . . and without objection from the [father], the court took judicial notice of the prior orders and proceedings involving the parties, which was proper in any event" ( Matter of Hermann v Williams , 179 AD3d 1545, 1546 [4th Dept 2020]; see Matter of Gugino v Tsvasman , 118 AD3d 1341, 1342 [4th Dept 2014]).

2025County Court's passing remark at the outset of the hearing that defendant had been "served" and did not wish to be present did not demonstrate such advisement or the basis for finding a waiver, and defense counsel did not represent that he had provided such advisements to defendant, that defendant was aware of his rights or that defendant had "expressed a desire to forego his presence at the hearing" ( People v Perez , 220 AD3d at 819 ; cf. People v Poleun , 26 NY3d 973, 974 [2015]; People v Caleb , 170 AD3d 1618 , 1618 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 910 [2019]; People v Porter , 37 AD3d 7

2025County Court's passing remark at the outset of the hearing that defendant had been "served" and did not wish to be present did not demonstrate such advisement or the basis for finding a waiver, and defense counsel did not represent that he had provided such advisements to defendant, that defendant was aware of his rights or that defendant had "expressed a desire to forego his presence at the hearing" ( People v Perez , 220 AD3d at 819; cf. People v Poleun , 26 NY3d 973, 974 [2015]; People v Caleb , 170 AD3d 1618, 1618 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 910 [2019]; People v Porter , 37 AD3d 797

2025No documentation of the advisement or waiver appears in the record ( cf. People v Poleun , 26 NY3d at 974-975; People v Kiernan , 232 AD3d at 916-917; People v Chang Soo Park , 187 AD3d 804 , 805 [2d Dept 2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 907 [2021]).

2025No documentation of the advisement or waiver appears in the record ( cf. People v Poleun , 26 NY3d at 974-975; People v Kiernan , 232 AD3d at 916-917; People v Chang Soo Park , 187 AD3d 804, 805 [2d Dept 2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 907 [2021]).

2025County Court's passing remark at the outset of the hearing that defendant had been "served" and did not wish to be present did not demonstrate such advisement or the basis for finding a waiver, and defense counsel did not represent that he had provided such advisements to defendant, that defendant was aware of his rights or that defendant had "expressed a desire to forego his presence at the hearing" ( People v Perez , 220 AD3d at 819 ; cf. People v Poleun , 26 NY3d 973, 974 [2015]; People v Caleb , 170 AD3d 1618 , 1618 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 910 [2019]; People v Porter , 37 AD3d 7

2025County Court's passing remark at the outset of the hearing that defendant had been "served" and did not wish to be present did not demonstrate such advisement or the basis for finding a waiver, and defense counsel did not represent that he had provided such advisements to defendant, that defendant was aware of his rights or that defendant had "expressed a desire to forego his presence at the hearing" ( People v Perez , 220 AD3d at 819; cf. People v Poleun , 26 NY3d 973, 974 [2015]; People v Caleb , 170 AD3d 1618, 1618 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 910 [2019]; People v Porter , 37 AD3d 797

2025County Court's passing remark at the outset of the hearing that defendant had been "served" and did not wish to be present did not demonstrate such advisement or the basis for finding a waiver, and defense counsel did not represent that he had provided such advisements to defendant, that defendant was aware of his rights or that defendant had "expressed a desire to forego his presence at the hearing" ( People v Perez , 220 AD3d at 819 ; cf. People v Poleun , 26 NY3d 973, 974 [2015]; People v Caleb , 170 AD3d 1618 , 1618 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 910 [2019]; People v Porter , 37 AD3d 7

2025County Court's passing remark at the outset of the hearing that defendant had been "served" and did not wish to be present did not demonstrate such advisement or the basis for finding a waiver, and defense counsel did not represent that he had provided such advisements to defendant, that defendant was aware of his rights or that defendant had "expressed a desire to forego his presence at the hearing" ( People v Perez , 220 AD3d at 819; cf. People v Poleun , 26 NY3d 973, 974 [2015]; People v Caleb , 170 AD3d 1618, 1618 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 910 [2019]; People v Porter , 37 AD3d 797

2023At the outset of our analysis, we are careful to not minimize respondent's admitted misconduct, as his improper use of a retainer agreement and his inappropriate sexual relationship with a client both, in their own ways, jeopardized the attorney-client relationship ( see Matter of Cooperman , 83 NY2d 465, 473 [1994]; Matter of Shmulsky , 186 AD3d at 1879 ).

2022Moreover, respondent's conduct is further exacerbated by his long tenure as an attorney in California ( see ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions [*2]standard 9.22 [i]), the "dishonest or selfish motive" behind his actions (ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.22 [b]) and the fact that his criminal conduct encompassed multiple offenses over a course of several years ( see ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.22 [c], [d], [k]; see also Matter of Uhl , 88 AD3d 1052, 1052-1053 [3d Dept 2011]; Matter of Richichi , 52 AD3d 1109, 1109 [3d Dept 2008]).

2022Moreover, respondent's conduct is further exacerbated by his long tenure as an attorney in California ( see ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions [*2]standard 9.22 [i]), the "dishonest or selfish motive" behind his actions (ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.22 [b]) and the fact that his criminal conduct encompassed multiple offenses over a course of several years ( see ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.22 [c], [d], [k]; see also Matter of Uhl , 88 AD3d 1052, 1052-1053 [3d Dept 2011]; Matter of Richichi , 52 AD3d 1109, 1109 [3d Dept 2008]).

2021In response, defendant indicated that he understood the nature of the right being relinquished, had no questions relative thereto and had been afforded sufficient time to confer with counsel ( see People v Feltz , 190 AD3d at 1026-1027 ; People v Brunson , 185 AD3d 1300, 1300 [2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 928 [2020]).

2021With respect to defendant's waiver of the right to appeal, the record reflects that defendant was informed at the outset that a waiver of the right to appeal was part of the plea agreement ( see People v Thaxton , 191 AD3d 1166, 1167 [2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 960 [2021]; People v Feltz , 190 AD3d 1026, 1026-1027 [2021]), and County Court both explained the separate and distinct nature of the right to appeal and distinguished it from the trial-related rights that defendant would be forfeiting by pleading guilty ( see People v Hemingway , 192 AD3d 1266, 1266 [2021], lvs denied 37 NY3d 956 , 960

2021In response, defendant indicated that he understood the nature of the right being relinquished, had no questions relative thereto and had been afforded sufficient time to confer with counsel ( see People v Feltz , 190 AD3d at 1026-1027 ; People v Brunson , 185 AD3d 1300, 1300 [2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 928 [2020]).

2021With respect to defendant's waiver of the right to appeal, the record reflects that defendant was informed at the outset that a waiver of the right to appeal was part of the plea agreement ( see People v Thaxton , 191 AD3d 1166, 1167 [2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 960 [2021]; People v Feltz , 190 AD3d 1026, 1026-1027 [2021]), and County Court both explained the separate and distinct nature of the right to appeal and distinguished it from the trial-related rights that defendant would be forfeiting by pleading guilty ( see People v Hemingway , 192 AD3d 1266, 1266 [2021], lvs denied 37 NY3d 956 , 960

2021With respect to defendant's waiver of the right to appeal, the record reflects that defendant was informed at the outset that a waiver of the right to appeal was part of the plea agreement ( see People v Thaxton , 191 AD3d 1166, 1167 [2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 960 [2021]; People v Feltz , 190 AD3d 1026, 1026-1027 [2021]), and County Court both explained the separate and distinct nature of the right to appeal and distinguished it from the trial-related rights that defendant would be forfeiting by pleading guilty ( see People v Hemingway , 192 AD3d 1266, 1266 [2021], lvs denied 37 NY3d 956 , 960

2021With respect to defendant's waiver of the right to appeal, the record reflects that defendant was informed at the outset that a waiver of the right to appeal was part of the plea agreement ( see People v Thaxton , 191 AD3d 1166, 1167 [2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 960 [2021]; People v Feltz , 190 AD3d 1026, 1026-1027 [2021]), and County Court both explained the separate and distinct nature of the right to appeal and distinguished it from the trial-related rights that defendant would be forfeiting by pleading guilty ( see People v Hemingway , 192 AD3d 1266, 1266 [2021], lvs denied 37 NY3d 956 , 960

2020Contrary to ATA's claim, the ALJ was not duty bound to "urge[]" her to do so ( see 12 NYCRR 461.4 [c]; compare Matter of Odom [Commissioner of Labor] , 131 AD3d 1323, 1323 [2015]; Matter of Milrad [Levine] , 44 AD2d 287, 289-290 [1974]).

2020Contrary to ATA's claim, the ALJ was not duty bound to "urge[]" her to do so ( see 12 NYCRR 461.4 [c]; compare Matter of Odom [Commissioner of Labor] , 131 AD3d 1323, 1323 [2015]; Matter of Milrad [Levine] , 44 AD2d 287, 289-290 [1974]).

2016Petitioner was granted an adjournment at the outset of the hearing in order to allow him to obtain employee assistance, and he has not demonstrated that he received inadequate assistance premised upon the assistant’s refusal to allow him to retain the documents or on any other ground (see Matter of Martin v Fischer, 109 AD3d 1026, 1027 [2013]).

2014At the outset of its analysis in Rush , the Court of Appeals expressly declined to create a bright-line rule that the issuance of a SEQRA positive declaration, requiring the preparation and circulation of a DEIS, is, in every instance, a mere “step in the agency decisionmaking process, and as such is not final or ripe for review” (id. at 243; see Matter of Center of Deposit, Inc. v Village of Deposit, 90 AD3d 1450, 1451 [2011]), or, conversely, that it is always a final agency action subject to judicial review.