The legality of Airbnb rentals in New York City have been under fire for awhile now, and the city just fired another volley: New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has released a report titled “Airbnb in the city,” and it’s not particularly…
Richard Wolf, USA TODAY, usatoday.com
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court opened its 2014 term this month with major actions on same-sex marriage, voting rights and abortion — all handled in private, without explanation or even a breakdown of ho …
In this case involving a period of prosecutorial inaction and delay, the Appellate Term reversed the Criminal Court’s decision granting defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding that the People had no obligation to advance the case to an earlier date upon receiving a certificate denying leave to appeal, and finding that the period from May 10, 2010 to August 23, 2010 was automatically excludable as time resulting from an appeal under CPL 30.30(4)(a). The judgment of the Appellate Term is reversed and the order of the Criminal Court reinstated, where the People provided no justification on the record for any “reasonable period of delay” under CPL 30.30(4)(a) to be added to the 90 days provided under CPL 30.30(1)(b).
In this criminal case, defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and there was a suppression ruling that the warrantless search for and recovery of the gun was lawful. The Appellate Division affirmed, though the dissenting Justice granted defendant leave to appeal, arguing that “once the police frisked the defendant and knew that the children did not have the gun, the emergency abated.” Judgment is affirmed, where there is record support for the majority’s conclusion that the search was lawful under the emergency exception, and any further review is beyond this court’s jurisdiction.
n this case, defendant and his friend were chased into his apartment by police officers, then handcuffed and frisked. The officers then proceeded to conduct a warrantless search of the premises, finding a gun in a metal box on the floor. Order of the Appellate Division concluding that the exigent circumstances that justified the officers’ entry into the apartment justified the warrantless search of the gun-at-issue is reversed, where: 1) the People failed to meet the burden of establishing that the exigencies of the situation justified the warrantless search of the closed box; and 2) the search was unreasonable as a matter of law because by the time the box was opened, any urgency justifying the warrantless search had abated, and so a warrant was required for searching the box.
Order allowing defendant’s resentencing application and remitting the matter for resentencing is affirmed, where: 1) defendant has never been convicted of any crimes which eliminate the possibility of a merit time allowance under Correction law section 803(1)(d)(ii) within the relevant time period; 2) defendant meets all other eligibility criteria for resentencing under the Drug Law Reform Act; and 3) defendant is therefore eligible for resentencing.
In this zoning case, Manhasset Pizza applied for an off-street parking variance in connection with a change in the storefront’s use from a retail gift shop to a restaurant. The judgment of the Appellate Division holding that the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) decision to grant the requested area variances was rational and not arbitrary and capricious is affirmed, where because both the retail gift shop and restaurant uses are permitted in the zoning district, the ZBA properly considered the application as a request for an area variance.
Order of the Appellate Division is modified to declare in favor of respondent County, and to uphold the County’s offsetting of petitioner Town’s liability for Fashion Institute of Technology (FIT) chargebacks from sales tax revenue, where the Education Law permits the County to charge back to the Town the amounts the County paid on behalf of Town residents attending FIT.
Defendant’s application for a writ of error corm nobis seeking leave to file a late notice of appeal is granted, where: 1) defense counsel failed to file an appeal on defendant’s behalf challenging the guilty plea, despite letters from defendant inquiring as to the status of the appeal; 2) acting pro se, defendant attempted to get permission to file a late notice of appeal but was procedurally barred from doing so because the one-year time period set by CPL 460.30 had passed; and 3) under the circumstances, defendant thus met his entitled to the relief sought.
ALBANY, New York—Can an animal who possesses the essential qualities of personhood ever be considered, in the eyes of the law, a person? As of now, the answer is no. But a panel of New York state judges yesterday considered that question, which wa…