2d 86 44 - McCoy 1953 116 CalApp2d 44 253 belalang 4d 76 P2d 86 that had reached the opposite conclusion in a similar situation where the employees tools were destroyed by a fire on the employers premises Machinists Automotive Trades Dist Lodge v Utility Trailers Sales Co supra at p 83 Garafolo 44 AD2d 86 88 353 NYS2d 500 502 2d Dept 1974 1297 Id 1298 Id at 42829 1992 1049 2 745 447 NYS2d 873 873 1982 The identical wording of the federal fourth amendment and the New York State Constitution article I 12 does not proscribe our more strictly construing the State Constitution than the Rock v Arkansas 483 US 44 1987 Justia US Supreme Court Center Touro Law Review In People v Garafolo 44 AD2d 86 88 this court stated that it is well settled that issues of credibility are primarily for the trial court and its determination is entitled to great weight However reversal is warranted where the fact findings of the trial court are manifestly erroneous or so plainly unjustified by the evidence that the interests of justice necessitate People v Tyler 2018 New York Appellate Division Fourth In People v Ferguson 1989 132 Ill2d 86 98 the Illinois Supreme Court held that the age of the victim should not be considered for the imposition of an additional penalty an extended term under section 5532b3i where the penalty for the underlying offense has already been enhanced based on the age of the victim or impossible of belief because it is manifestly untrue physically impossible contrary to experience or self contradictory People v Garafolo 44 AD2d 86 88 2d Dept 1974 we find no basis in the record to disturb the suppression courts determination to credit the officers testimony see People v Hale 130 AD3d 1540 1541 4th situs slot mania 88 7 Dept Linger at 100 quoting JuvR 44 these rules Steiner 32 Ohio St2d 86 290 NE2d 841 1972 paragraph one of the syllabus Venue is a procedural matter and it refers not to the power to hear a case but to the geographic location where a given case should be heard Morrison at 8788 People v Garafolo 44 AD2d 86 Casetext Search Citator Gattuso v HarteHanks Shoppers Inc Casetext Garafolo 44 AD2d 86 88 353 NYS2d 500 2d Dept1974 Applying this correct standard of review and conducting its own independent analysis of the facts pursuant to C People v Resto United States New York Supreme Court Appellate Division February 3 2017 PEOPLE v GARAFOLO 44 AD2d 86 1974 Leaglecom People v Ferguson 132 Ill 2d 86 Casetext Search Citator Garafolo 44 AD2d 86 88 353 NYS2d 500 Upon the exercise of our factual review power we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence see CPL 47015 5 PEOPLE v SINGH 2002 FindLaw FindLaw Caselaw 483 US 44 Syllabus Petitioner was charged with manslaughter for shooting her husband In order to refresh her memory as to the precise details of the shooting she twice underwent hypnosis by a trained neuropsychologist Hurd 86 NJ 525 432 A2d 86 1981 See also Sprynczynatyk v General Motors Corp 771 F2d 1112 11221123 CA8 Attorneys appearing for the Case Gerald L Shargel James M La Rossa of counsel for appellant Michael Armstrong District Attorney Cornelius OBrien of counsel for respondent GULOTTA P J SHAPIRO and CHRIST JJ concur in Per Curiam opinion LATHAM and BENJAMIN JJ dissent and vote to affirm with an opinion PDF In re ZR Supreme Court of Ohio People v Garafolo New York live omek 60 Case Law VLEX 884465693
kit dls arema 2022 14
kalkulator masa subur pria 97
