Ostrovsky v. City of New York et al., 2 Misc.3d 151 (Sup. Ct. 2002), aff'd for reasons stated in the Supreme Court's decision, 1 A.D.3d 117 (1st Dept  2003).

The defendants were not entitled to summary judgment where the record raised factual issues on the question of whether the defendants were liable for the plaintiff's injuries based on the duty of the defendants to maintain a modification to the street which was done to protect their driveway and for which they therefore received a special benefit.

People v. Garcia (and Pizzaro), 194 Misc2d 263 (2002).

The District Attorney's application to utilize two juries in a single trial of severed defendants is denied.

People v. Ratcliffe, 191 Misc2d 545 (2002).

An application to admit expert identification testimony should:
(1) to the extent known set forth the pertinent alleged facts of the identification and any corroborative evidence;
(2) set forth the name and qualifications of the witness and the "proffered" testimony;
(3) correlate the proffered testimony with the facts of the case to demonstrate the relevance of the expert testimony;
(4) explain whether the testimony involves "novel scientific theories and techniques," and if it does, include an offer of proof as to its general acceptance by the relevant scientific community; and
(5) explain why the testimony is warranted if an existing standard jury instruction would appear to cover the area of the proffered expert testimony.

People v. Pena, 169 Misc2d 75 (1996).

People v. Perez, 168 Misc2d 162 (1995), aff'd. 260 A.D.2d 223 (1st Dep't 1999), leave to appeal denied 93 N.Y.2d 1005 (1999), writ of habeas corpus denied sub. nom. Perez v. Greiner, 2003 WL 21203351 (S.D.N.Y.  2003) and reconsideration denied 2003 WL 22137013 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).

An indictment may be amended at trial to correct the alleged date of the crime even if the indictment alleges a date that is subsequent both to the actual date of the commission of the crime and to the date of the filing of the indictment.

People v. Lugo, June 5, 1995.

Albeit the People failed to show good cause for an almost 38-month delay in indicting the defendant for murder, in the absence of a showing by the defendant of prejudice from the delay, the delay was not so excessive as to deprive the defendant of due process.

People v. Cosby, April 8, 1994, aff'd 271 A.D.2d 353 (1st Dep't 2000), leave to appeal denied 95 N.Y.2d 904 (2000).

The defendant was not denied the right to counsel when the Court denied defendant's application made during the trial near the end of the presentation of the People's case to order a mistrial or an adjournment to permit the substitution of defense counsel.

People v. Miguel Reyes, October 26, 1994.

An Electronic Serial Number (ESN) is "computer data" not a "computer program." Proof that a person used a computer to alter, without authority, the ESN on each of four cellular phones would suffice to support prima facie a charge of computer tampering in the first degree. Possession alone of a telephone with an altered ESN does not permit the inference that the possessor knew that the ESN was altered.

People v. Esquilin, 158 Misc2d 618 (1993)

A defendant remanded on a charge for murder was entitled to reasonable bail to preserve his right to a speedy trial where the defendant was consistently ready for trial for a year and the prosecutor was consistently not ready for that year and in fact after a year represented that further investigation was necessary.

People v. Jackson, 153 Misc2d 270 (1991). See People v. Perez, 83 N.Y.2d 269 (1994).

An indictment can not be amended to add a count that was approved for inclusion by the Grand Jury but was inadvertently omitted from the indictment.

People v Gleason, NYLJ, 8-23-90, p 19, c 1

[a] That the target of a Grand Jury proceeding is not entitled to notice of the pendancy of that proceeding does not void the target's right to testify if the target is aware of the proceedings and gives the requisite notice.

[b] A target of a Grand Jury proceeding who is not entitled to be notified of the pendancy of the Grand Jury proceeding and is unaware of that proceeding is not aggrieved when the District Attorney undertakes to give such notice but fails.

[c] The District Attorney can waive written notification of a target's request to testify in the Grand Jury by accepting oral notification.

[d] A Grand Jury that was instructed to consider whether the subjects of the proceeding, correction officers, acted in self-defense in the alleged assault of an inmate was here also required to be instructed on the Correction Law provision that also allows such officers to use force against inmates to prevent insurrection or defend property, or to maintain order and prevent escapes.

People v. Stacy Washington, July 16, 1990.

In the Grand Jury the defendant testified to an alibi. The integrity of the Grand Jury proceeding was not impaired and the defendant was not prejudice by the failure of the Assistant District Attorney to charge the Grand Jury on the defense of alibi given (a) that on being impaneled, the judge instructed the Grand Jury on the defense of alibi; (b) the defense made no request for the alibi charge, and (c) the issue of identity was well understood by the Grand Jurors, and on the facts, the defendant suffered no prejudice.