In re Sidney Rapoport

2 Citing cases

  1. People v. Loper

    38 A.D.3d 1178 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)   Cited 4 times

    We note, however, that McDaniel was decided prior to the decision in Laureano ( 87 NY2d 640), which clarified the appropriate analysis for determining whether Penal Law § 70.25 (2) requires concurrent sentencing. In addition, the internal records of this Court, of which we take notice ( see Matter of Rapoport v Koenig, 237 AD2d 820), establish that in McDaniel the People conceded that concurrent sentences were required, and in Smith the concession of the People with respect to this issue was, according to their brief on appeal, based on McDaniel. We therefore would affirm the judgment of conviction without modification of the sentence imposed.

  2. Matter of Abramov v. Board of Assessors

    257 A.D.2d 958 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)   Cited 31 times
    In Matter of Abramov v Board of Assessors (257 AD2d 958), respondents' answer was deemed made and they waited until five months after the return date of the petition to move for dismissal based upon the Statute of Limitations.

    Initially, petitioners purchased an index number and request for judicial intervention from the County Clerk, but inexplicably failed to file the notice of petition and petition at that time ( see, CPLR 306-a; see also, 6 Siegel's Practice Review, New Filing System, at 1 [Aug. 1993]). Because service of process was effected prior to the clerk's receipt of the petition, and hence commencement of the proceeding ( see, Matter of Rapoport v. Koenig, 237 A.D.2d 820), petitioners failed to acquire personal jurisdiction over respondents ( see, Matter of Fry v. Village of Tarrytown, 89 N.Y.2d 714, 719-720; Siegel, N Y Prac § 111, at 28 [2d ed 1998 Pocket Part]).