Search for: "People v. Conte" Results 41 - 60 of 259
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 May 2015, 3:49 pm by Stephen Bilkis
Nothing in the statute restricts its application solely to harmful conduct directed at children (see, People v Bergerson, 17 [95 N.Y.2d 372] NY2d 398, 401 [noting that the prior version of statute was intended to be broad in scope]). [read post]
6 Oct 2014, 1:04 pm by Stephen Bilkis
Whereas in the present case, a criminal statute employs the word 'false', it requires proof of something more than the untrue. [read post]
19 May 2014, 3:29 pm by Stephen Bilkis
The destruction of the unquickened fetus was not manslaughter at common law as held in Evans v People. [read post]
24 Nov 2013, 2:36 pm by Stephen Bilkis
However, in Mental Hygiene Legal Serv. v Spitzer (2007), the court enjoined the operation of this provision of the statute because it held that the continued detention of a respondent in every case following a probable cause determination but prior to a trial was "inherently coercive" and a violation of constitutional due process. [read post]
9 Feb 2013, 12:41 pm by Brian Shiffrin
People v Nimmons, 95 AD3d 1360, 1360-1361, lv denied 19 NY3d 1028; People v Tucker, 91 AD3d 1030, 1031-1032, lv denied 19 NY3d 1002; People v Ham, 67 AD3d 1038, 1039-1040; People v Gray, 30 AD3d 771, 773, lv denied 7 NY3d 848).Mr. [read post]
30 Oct 2014, 3:11 pm by Stephen Bilkis
.' In support of the foregoing contention, the accused alludes to People v. [read post]
10 Apr 2015, 12:40 pm by Stephen Bilkis
(See People v Casey, supra; see also People v Miles, 64 NY2d 731 [1984] [read post]
2 Apr 2015, 3:34 pm by Stephen Bilkis
As a corollary to the right to criminal counsel, non-English speaking individuals have the right to an interpreter to enable them to participate meaningfully in their trial and assist in their own defense (see People v Ramos, 26 NY2d 272, 274 [1970]; People v Perez, 198 AD2d 446, 447 [1993]; People v De Armas, 106 AD2d 659). [read post]
26 May 2015, 2:00 pm by Stephen Bilkis
Courts have recognized that under Penal Law § 35.10(1) a parent may use physical force against a child when he reasonably believes it to be necessary to promote discipline or the child's welfare (see Fields, 134 AD2dat 365; see People v Prue, 219 AD2d 873 [4th Dept 1995]; People v Thompson, 9 Misc 3d 1123[A] [City Ct, Westchester County 2005]). [read post]
25 May 2015, 9:00 pm by Stephen Bilkis
A criminal defendant may commit the offense of Endangering the Welfare of a Child through a single act or through multiple acts over a period of time (see People v Keindl, 68 NY2d 410, 421 [1986]). [read post]