Case law

People v. Wolfe

199 Misc. 413 · New York County Courts · Oct 14, 1950

At pp. 215-216 the court stated as follows: “ The petition in this case clearly avers that George Hawie was insane at the time he was placed upon trial, and at the time he was actually tried and convicted. … The passage of time between the criminal act itself and the first diagnosis of insanity by a qualified psychiatrist puts the question of responsibility into the realm of speculation, at least insofar as the court or any other

People v. Brooks

128 Misc. 2d 608 · New York County Courts · May 23, 1985

It is anticipated that there will be some extrinsic evidence of defendant’s culpability, none of which will conclusively establish the defendant’s commission of the crime. … Most expert testimony clearly falls within the second class. The expert is offered because it is the conclusion to be drawn from the facts, and not the facts themselves, which requires expertise.

Markese v. Cooper

70 Misc. 2d 478 · New York County Courts · May 19, 1972

Essentially, it comes down to the control over the property which the landlord claims to reserve to himself not only to let and relet, but to immunize it from disclosure of housing violations. … It is precisely this right which has been established by both the New York and Rochester Legislatures.

People v. Schultz

23 Misc. 2d 620 · New York County Courts · Feb 26, 1960

The disjunctive statute rule as it expands the Olah rule is clearly stated by Judge Burke in People ex rel. Gold v. … They have been challenged as violating equal protection, privileges and immunities, due process, privilege against self-incrimination, double jeopardy and ex post facto. All such contentions have been rejected.

People v. Kur

76 Misc. 2d 825 · New York County Courts · Jan 7, 1974

The question is clearly this — against whom do the prohibitions of the statute apply! … There are two cases which are clearly distinguishable from the holding in Korman . In People v.

People v. Irizarry

48 Misc. 3d 171 · New York County Courts · Aug 7, 2014

If the defendant establishes all six Salemi factors, the remedy is for the hearing court to grant a new trial. … It clearly was not covered in leather and was not black in color.

People v. Morse

127 Misc. 2d 468 · New York County Courts · Feb 1, 1985

The fourth section 1194-a reference, subdivision (3) (d), to section 1194 is to its subdivision (7), which deals with who is qualified to take blood, liability or lack thereof, and testimonial competence. … Clearly fear of a six month license revocation is inadequate incentive to persuade a driver to part with evidence so crucial to the prosecution” (Assembly Memorandum in Support, p 2).

People v. Block

190 Misc. 78 · New York County Courts · Nov 1, 1947

On arraignment the defendant moved for a dismissal of the indictment on the grounds, first, that the Grand Jury was not sworn, and second, that included in the Grand Jury was one member who was not qualified to serve because … The very form of the expressions used most clearly indicates it. They are strictly enjoined and required to select, &c.

People v. Rentz

120 Misc. 2d 165 · New York County Courts · Jul 26, 1983

While Moriah clearly indicated that he only specifically recalled telling the Judge about the relationships, he recalled in general that the conversation at the Bench was brief, lasting only a minute or so and ending when … some legal barrier to his further service as a qualified juror.

People v. Roderman

34 Misc. 2d 497 · New York County Courts · May 29, 1962

And since the act established by the evidence was not shown to have amounted to arson (People v. Knatt, 156 N. … State, 19 Wyo. 493, 513, 514 [1912]) but qualify the ruling with an admonition that as a matter of discretion, a “liberally wide latitude” should be allowed (Hall v. State, 199 Ind. 592, 604-605 ) [1928]). .

People v. Gabriel

37 Misc. 3d 621 · New York County Courts · Sep 5, 2012

Yet the exceptions clearly and specifically allow the feeding of deer through deer food crops or agricultural planting. … Therefore, although there was no independent evidence establishing each element of the violation, appellant’s admission of placing food in his backyard that obviously attracted deer established that he violated 6 NYCRR 189.3

In re Town of Hector

24 N.Y.S. 475 · New York County Courts · Jul 15, 1893

The word has been variously construed to mean an occupier of lands; a resident; a per manent resident; one having a domicile; a citizen; a qualified voter. … Rapallo, J., states the rule clearly in the Dupuy Case, 53 N. Y. 556 .

People v. Fentress

103 Misc. 2d 179 · New York County Courts · Feb 13, 1980

In short, he contends that the alleged breach of confidentiality immunizes him from criminal responsibility. … The answer is clearly yes, on the basis of the hearing testimony.

People v. Somas

68 Misc. 2d 450 · New York County Courts · Jan 4, 1972

The building located at that address contains two factory establishments and an apartment on the first floor. … This principle of law is also clearly set forth by the New York Court of Appeals in People v. Gallmon (19 N Y 2d 389 [1967], cert. den. 390 U. S. 911 ).

People v. Rankin

46 Misc. 3d 791 · New York County Courts · Nov 13, 2014

Stubbe’s testimony further established that First Assistant Public Defender Roger Brazil interviewed defendant’s mother by telephone and found the defendant financially eligible. … The nature or specifics of the “additional information” was not altogether developed clearly at the hearing. .

People v. De Sisto

27 Misc. 2d 217 · New York County Courts · Apr 5, 1961

In the instant case the issue of identity is clearly an ultimate fact. … Clearly this latter result depended on “double jeopardy” principles rather than “ collateral estoppel.”

People v. Bennett

185 Misc. 2d 219 · New York County Courts · Jun 20, 2000

He qualified for representation by that office. … (“[A] showing that counsel failed to make a particular pretrial motion generally does not, by itself, establish ineffective assistance of counsel * * * To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, it is incumbent

Prouty v. Prouty

5 How. Pr. 81 · New York County Courts · Sep 15, 1848

The relation of the appellant under such a demise and continued occupation was clearly that of a tenant from year to year, as defined by all writers who have treated of that particular estate. … Still it remained an estate at will, qualified only by the new rule of notice which controlled the exercise of such will, in respect to the time when it might take effect, and the mode in which it should be manifested.