Search for: "People v. McKinney" Results 61 - 80 of 136
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 May 2015, 3:54 pm by Stephen Bilkis
We reiterate, however, that each case is fact specific (see, People v West, 271 AD2d 806; People v Brooks, 270 AD2d 206, lv denied 95 NY2d 794; People v Parr, 155 AD2d 945, lv denied 75 NY2d 870 [all holding that a defendant who performs a significant act of domestic violence against a mother in the presence of a child is guilty of endangering the welfare of that child]). [95 N.Y.2d 374] With respect to defendant's appeal, the issues… [read post]
18 Apr 2015, 3:44 pm by Stephen Bilkis
In addition to the confidentiality of the information sought, a subpoena duces tecum may not be used for purposes of procuring discovery, or to ascertain the existence of evidence (see Matter of Amex v Vinci, 63 AD3d 1055 [2d Dept. 2009]; Matter of Terry D., 81 NY2d 1042, 1044 [1993], citing People v Gissendanner, 48 NY2d 543, 551 [1979]). [read post]
16 Apr 2015, 3:31 pm by Stephen Bilkis
We reiterate, however, that each case is fact specific (see, People v West, 271 AD2d 806; People v Brooks, 270 AD2d 206, lv denied 95 NY2d 794; People v Parr, 155 AD2d 945, lv denied 75 NY2d 870 [all holding that a defendant who performs a significant act of domestic violence against a mother in the presence of a child is guilty of endangering the welfare of that child]). [95 N.Y.2d 374] With respect to defendant's appeal, the issues… [read post]
3 Apr 2015, 3:49 pm by Stephen Bilkis
"], lv to appeal denied, 13 NY3d 748 [2009]; People v Abdullah, 23 Misc 3d 232, 234 (Crim Ct, Kings County 2008] ["Because New York does not have a complete ban on the possession of handguns in the home... [read post]
23 Nov 2014, 12:00 am by Illinois BLJ
  Uber’s own drivers have brought a class action in a case called Yucesoy v. [read post]
6 Aug 2014, 7:19 pm by Donald Thompson
 In People v Schreier, 22 NY3d 494 [2014], the Court made clear that surreptitiousness is a separate and distinct element from whether the recording was done without the subject’s knowledge or consent, and is also separate and distinct from the requirement that the recording took place in a location where the subject had a reasonable expectation of privacy (both of which are also required by the statute). [read post]