legal basis claim in New York

2016Absent any explanation of how Matter of Eberhardt v City of Yonkers ( 305 AD2d 501 [2d Dept 2003]) applies to this case, petitioners also fail to set forth a violation of section 107 (5) or a legal basis for their claim that section 123 governs here.

2010However, such ignorance of the law is not a reasonable excuse (Bayo v Burnside Mews Assoc., 45 AD3d 495 [2007]).

2005The notice of intention merely lacked an [ad damnum] clause which may be addressed in an amended claim”); Partridge v State of New York, Ct Cl, May 31, 2000, Patti, J., Claim No. 90710, UID No. 2000-013-002 (“A pleading may comply with the Court of Claims Act requirements for stating a claim, even though it does not indicate the dollar amount that the claim seeks in damages”); Concourse Nursing Home v State of New York, Ct Cl, Mar. 21, 2000, Collins, J., Claim No. 101181, UID No. 2000-015-011 (“it is well settled that absent a demonstration of prejudice a motion to amend a claim to set forth t

2005The notice of intention merely lacked an [ad damnum] clause which may be addressed in an amended claim”); Partridge v State of New York, Ct Cl, May 31, 2000, Patti, J., Claim No. 90710, UID No. 2000-013-002 (“A pleading may comply with the Court of Claims Act requirements for stating a claim, even though it does not indicate the dollar amount that the claim seeks in damages”); Concourse Nursing Home v State of New York, Ct Cl, Mar. 21, 2000, Collins, J., Claim No. 101181, UID No. 2000-015-011 (“it is well settled that absent a demonstration of prejudice a motion to amend a claim to set forth t

1996Here, the defendant alleges the failure of the "public servant” to give Miranda warnings (Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]) as the legal basis for his claim of involuntariness.

1994The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 ).

1994In any event, the court did not err in summarily denying those branches of the motion which dealt with the Dunaway and identification issues, since the defendant’s motion papers failed to allege sufficient grounds constituting a legal basis for a hearing on those matters (see, CPL 710.60 [3]; People v Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415 ).

1988The Trial Judge inquired as to the legal basis of defense counsel’s application for production, and recessed the proceeding, directing defense counsel to "bring me some law.” Counsel, upon returning from the library, informed the court that the application was made pursuant to People v Cleary ( 33 AD2d 814 ).

1988The prosecutor vigorously opposed the application, stating that the DD-5 did not relate to the homicide and that "my information is that Mr. Moore is not the informant that is mentioned in the paperwork provided by Mr. Tarantino’s attorney.” Based on the prosecutor’s statement, the court then denied defense counsel’s application for production of an unredacted copy of the DD-5 investigative report concerning Anthony Tarantino, without conducting an in camera examination of the requested document (see, People v Poole, 48 NY2d 144 ), and also denied the defense’s request for production of the en