diminished standard in New York

2002Co. v Rosenberg, 82 NY2d 364, 371-372 ).

1999Co. v Rosenberg, 82 NY2d 364 ; Matter of Consolidated Edison Co. v Hoffman, 43 NY2d 598 ), have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

2012Matter of Whelan v Adduci ( 133 AD2d 273 [1987], lv denied 70 NY2d 616 [1988]) is inapposite.

2012Since the complaint alleges that Goldberg intentionally participated in the scheme to convert plaintiffs deposit, it sufficiently alleges that Goldberg was grossly negligent (Colnaghi, U.S.A. v Jewelers Protection Servs., 81 NY2d 821, 823-824 [1993] [gross negligence is “conduct that evinces a reckless disregard for the rights of others or smacks of intentional wrongdoing”] [internal quotation marks omitted]), thereby breaching the duty of trust and loyalty it owed plaintiff as her fiduciary (Bardach v Chain Bakers, Inc., 265 App Div 24, 27 [1942], affd 290 NY 813 [1943] [as a trustee, an escr

1999Co. v Rosenberg, 82 NY2d 364 ; Matter of Consolidated Edison Co. v Hoffman, 43 NY2d 598 ), have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

1997Further, as the People argue, the Grand Jury evidence clearly demonstrated that defendant’s handling of the drugs was "sufficient contact with the substance to experience its weight” (People v Sanchez, supra, 86 NY2d, at 33 ), so that an inference that defendant knew the weight of the drugs could properly have been drawn, particularly under the diminished standard of proof applicable to sustain indictments as opposed to petit jury verdicts (see, People v Manini, 79 NY2d 561, 568-569 ).

1997Further, as the People argue, the Grand Jury evidence clearly demonstrated that defendant’s handling of the drugs was "sufficient contact with the substance to experience its weight” (People v Sanchez, supra, 86 NY2d, at 33 ), so that an inference that defendant knew the weight of the drugs could properly have been drawn, particularly under the diminished standard of proof applicable to sustain indictments as opposed to petit jury verdicts (see, People v Manini, 79 NY2d 561, 568-569 ).

1989Finally, the Supreme Court properly vacated the defendant’s demand for the production of documents pursuant to CPLR 3111, since the defendant’s notice fails to meet even the diminished standard of specificity applicable to such demands (see, Kaufman v Kaufman, 134 AD2d 407 ; Carrella v Carrella, 97 AD2d 394 ).

1989Finally, the Supreme Court properly vacated the defendant’s demand for the production of documents pursuant to CPLR 3111, since the defendant’s notice fails to meet even the diminished standard of specificity applicable to such demands (see, Kaufman v Kaufman, 134 AD2d 407 ; Carrella v Carrella, 97 AD2d 394 ).