propriety hearing in New York

1995Accordingly, the defendant cannot now challenge the propriety of the hearing court’s denial of his motion to suppress identification testimony (see, People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273 ; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1 ; People v Meyers, 204 AD2d 492 ; People v Butler, 198 AD2d 427 ; People v Carter, 191 AD2d 640 ).

1995Accordingly, he cannot challenge the propriety of the hearing court’s denial of his suppression motion (see, People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273 ; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1 ; People v Meyers, 204 AD2d 492 ; People v Butler, 198 AD2d 427 ; People v Carter, 191 AD2d 640 ).

1995Accordingly, the defendant cannot now challenge the propriety of the hearing court’s denial of his motion to suppress identification testimony (see, People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273 ; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1 ; People v Meyers, 204 AD2d 492 ; People v Butler, 198 AD2d 427 ; People v Carter, 191 AD2d 640 ).

1995Accordingly, he cannot challenge the propriety of the hearing court’s denial of his suppression motion (see, People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273 ; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1 ; People v Meyers, 204 AD2d 492 ; People v Butler, 198 AD2d 427 ; People v Carter, 191 AD2d 640 ).

1995Accordingly, the defendant cannot now challenge the propriety of the hearing court’s denial of his motion to suppress identification testimony (see, People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273 ; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1 ; People v Meyers, 204 AD2d 492 ; People v Butler, 198 AD2d 427 ; People v Carter, 191 AD2d 640 ).

1995Accordingly, he cannot challenge the propriety of the hearing court’s denial of his suppression motion (see, People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273 ; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1 ; People v Meyers, 204 AD2d 492 ; People v Butler, 198 AD2d 427 ; People v Carter, 191 AD2d 640 ).

1995Accordingly, the defendant cannot now challenge the propriety of the hearing court’s denial of his motion to suppress identification testimony (see, People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273 ; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1 ; People v Meyers, 204 AD2d 492 ; People v Butler, 198 AD2d 427 ; People v Carter, 191 AD2d 640 ).

1995Accordingly, he cannot challenge the propriety of the hearing court’s denial of his suppression motion (see, People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273 ; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1 ; People v Meyers, 204 AD2d 492 ; People v Butler, 198 AD2d 427 ; People v Carter, 191 AD2d 640 ).

2018Issues should only be reviewed where the defendant's contentions represent recurring issues of public interest which would otherwise escape appellate review ( see People v Baker , 100 AD3d 1154 , 1155 [2012]; People v Smith , 50 Misc 3d 134 [A], 2016 NY Slip Op 50043[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2016]; People v Concepcion , 41 Misc 3d at 4 ).

2018Issues should only be reviewed where the defendant's contentions represent recurring issues of public interest which would otherwise escape appellate review ( see People v Baker , 100 AD3d 1154 , 1155 [2012]; People v Smith , 50 Misc 3d 134 [A], 2016 NY Slip Op 50043[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2016]; People v Concepcion , 41 Misc 3d at 4).

2015Defendant’s challenge to the propriety of the hearing based on the alleged pleading defects was previously rejected on an earlier appeal ( 125 AD3d 527 [1st Dept 2015]).

2015Defendant’s challenge to the propriety of the hearing based on the alleged pleading defects was previously rejected on an earlier appeal ( 125 AD3d 527 [1st Dept 2015]).

2009The propriety of the hearing court’s ruling must be determined only in light of the evidence that was before that court (see People v Gonzalez, 55 NY2d 720, 721-722 [1981], cert denied 456 US 1010 [1982]; People v South, 47 AD3d at 735 ; People v Kendrick, 256 AD2d 420 [1998]).

1996In addition, the defendant may not rely upon the trial record in challenging the propriety of the hearing court’s determination (see, People v Dodt, 61 NY2d 408 ; People v Gonzalez, 55 NY2d 720 , cert denied 456 US 1010 ; People v Hucks, 175 AD2d 213 ).

1998Since the defendant did not seek to reopen the hearing based on the trial testimony or move for a mistrial, the instant issue is not properly before this Court (see, People v Gaston, 239 AD2d 356 ; People v Ore, 157 AD2d 749 ; People v Hucks, supra).

1996In addition, the defendant may not rely upon the trial record in challenging the propriety of the hearing court’s determination (see, People v Dodt, 61 NY2d 408 ; People v Gonzalez, 55 NY2d 720 , cert denied 456 US 1010 ; People v Hucks, 175 AD2d 213 ).

1995Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the court permissibly exercised its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea (see, People v Tinsley, 35 NY2d 926 ; People v Gomez, 205 AD2d 799 ; People v Jaworowski, 201 AD2d 504 ; see also, People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536 ; People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9 ; People v Meyers, supra; People v De Jesus, 199 AD2d 529 ).

1994We further reject the defendant’s claim that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea (see, CPL 220.60 [3]; People v De Jesus, 199 AD2d 529 ; People v McMahon, 163 AD2d 588 ).

1995Accordingly, the defendant cannot now challenge the propriety of the hearing court’s denial of his motion to suppress identification testimony (see, People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273 ; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1 ; People v Meyers, 204 AD2d 492 ; People v Butler, 198 AD2d 427 ; People v Carter, 191 AD2d 640 ).

1995Accordingly, he cannot challenge the propriety of the hearing court’s denial of his suppression motion (see, People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273 ; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1 ; People v Meyers, 204 AD2d 492 ; People v Butler, 198 AD2d 427 ; People v Carter, 191 AD2d 640 ).

1995Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the court permissibly exercised its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea (see, People v Tinsley, 35 NY2d 926 ; People v Gomez, 205 AD2d 799 ; People v Jaworowski, 201 AD2d 504 ; see also, People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536 ; People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9 ; People v Meyers, supra; People v De Jesus, 199 AD2d 529 ).

1993The defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea does not alter this conclusion, inasmuch as his plea was legally adequate (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9 ) and he unequivocally admitted his guilt and expressed his satisfaction with his counsel during the proceedings.

1903He cannot act in contravention to the dictates of reasonable prudence or refuse to inquire when the propriety of inquiry is naturally suggested by circumstances known to him.” (Citing Baker v. Bliss, 39 N. Y. 70 ; Story Eq.

1903He cannot act in contravention to the dictates of reasonable prudence, or refuse to inquire when the propriety of inquiry is naturally suggested by circumstances known to him.” Citing Baker v. Bliss, 39 N. Y. 70 ; Story, Eq.

1870The views expressed by the chancellor in the case of the Cayuga Bridge Co. v. Magee ( 2 Paige, 116 ), were pointed and to the purpose, illustrating the propriety of the rule, under what he believed to be the total want of power in the court to make recompense for damages sustained by reason of an injunction.

1870The views expressed by the chancellor in the case of the Cayuga Bridge Co. v. Magee, 2 Paige, 116 , were pointed and to the purpose, illustrating the propriety of the rule, under what he believed to be the total want of power in the court to make recompense for damages sustained by reason of an injunction.

2018At the hearing, the Chair questioned petitioner's{**32 NY3d at 135} avowed respect for the Commission by referencing comments purportedly made by the petitioner, which were not in the record.

2015Since the defendant did not seek to reopen the hearing based on the trial testimony, or move for a mistrial, the question of whether the trooper’s trial testimony undermined the hearing court’s determination is not properly before this Court (see People v Moss, 67 AD3d at 1027-1028 ).

2015The propriety of the hearing court’s ruling must be determined only in light of the evidence that was before that court (see People v Gonzalez, 55 NY2d 720 [1981]; People v Andujar, 267 AD2d at 468 ).

2009The propriety of the hearing court’s ruling must be determined only in light of the evidence that was before that court (see People v Gonzalez, 55 NY2d 720, 721-722 [1981], cert denied 456 US 1010 [1982]; People v South, 47 AD3d at 735 ; People v Kendrick, 256 AD2d 420 [1998]).

2009The propriety of the hearing court’s ruling must be determined only in light of the evidence that was before that court (see People v Gonzalez, 55 NY2d 720, 721-722 [1981], cert denied 456 US 1010 [1982]; People v South, 47 AD3d at 735 ; People v Kendrick, 256 AD2d 420 [1998]).

2009Since the defendant did not seek to reopen the hearing based on the trial testimony, or move for a mistrial, the question of whether the trial testimony undermined the hearing court’s determination with respect to the showup identification procedure is not properly before this Court (see People v Feinsod, 278 AD2d 335 [2000]; People v Kendrick, 256 AD2d 420 [1998]).

2009Since the defendant did not seek to reopen the hearing based on the trial testimony, or move for a mistrial, the question of whether the trial testimony undermined the hearing court’s determination with respect to the showup identification procedure is not properly before this Court (see People v Feinsod, 278 AD2d 335 [2000]; People v Kendrick, 256 AD2d 420 [1998]).

2004However, petitioners never brought an Article 78 with regard to this decision, and as such, any claims concerning the propriety of this waiver are time-barred by the four-month statute of limitations. ( Matter of Young v. Board of Trustees of the Village of Blasdell , 89 NY2d 846 ).

2003The additional claims raised by the defendant with regard to the propriety of the hearing court’s determination are without merit (see People v Worthy, 308 AD2d 555 [2003] [decided herewith]).

2000The record reveals that the defendant’s presence at the ex parte conference would not have provided him with a meaningful opportunity to affect the issue before the court, which was the propriety of the defense counsel’s past and future conduct regarding the presentation of perjured testimony to the jury (see, People v Williams, 85 NY2d 945, 947 ; People v Hines, 260 AD2d 646 ).

2000The record reveals that the defendant’s presence at the ex parte conference would not have provided him with a meaningful opportunity to affect the issue before the court, which was the propriety of the defense counsel’s past and future conduct regarding the presentation of perjured testimony to the jury (see, People v Williams, 85 NY2d 945, 947 ; People v Hines, 260 AD2d 646 ).