NY July 2015 Support Group Forum

[mrs_featherbottom]

Right. So why in Evidence Essay 4, couldn't the approach be solicitation instead of accomplice liability (which is how the Answer Key approaches it).

What am I missing why trying to "get him" on Solicitation would be wrong? Like am I just skipping the word that says "he is being prosecuted on a theory of accomplice liability"

Ah - well once you pay somebody, you become an accomplice and not just one who solicits. So solicitation goes out the window. But yeah, if they couldn't prove accomplice they could prosecute on solicitation.

Solicitation does not merge in NY, so I don't think it 'goes out the window.' BUT I think the reason they talked about accomplice liability and not solicitation or conspiracy is because accomplice liability is not in and of itself a crime. You are not charged with "accomplice," you are charged with having committed the underlying crime due to your role in requesting, commanding, importuning etc. Don't forget, solicitation and conspiracy are inchoate crimes- he would have been charged with the crime of solicitation or the crime of conspiracy. If they ask about the actual underlying crime, then always discuss accomplice.

you can't be charged as just an accomplice, ever?

No, being an 'accomplice' in itself is not a crime on its own. You are charged with 1) the underlying offense you aided/abetted, plus 2) any other crimes that are reasonably foreseeable that are committed by the principal.

Ah I didn't realize this. I appreciate it.

Does anyone have a good way of keeping the two assumption of risk theories straight? So one forbids recovery despite comparative negligence rules, and the other just limits it?

Same thing with keeping the two theories of NIED straight. Bystander NY NIED requires zone of danger/observation/close family/emotional distress, and if under a close call theory it only requires breach/zone of danger/emotional distress. Doesn't D's breach, typically at least, occur under bystander anyway liability? So it's almost identical but without the requirements of observation/close family?

So for assumption of risk there's primary which forbids all recovery by P - in NY, this is only for participation in sporting/recreation events. Then there's secondary where P ignores D's warnings and proceeds to get hurt. That will just reduce P's recovery under comparative negligence rules.

[xfer2013]

Sorry if this has already been discussed...

I'm looking at the permitted items and exam policy stuff. So we can only bring in the stuff in the clear bag, and the stuff in the clear bag can only be the stuff on the list. So like... we can't bring our hotel room key? Can I have a wallet in my back pocket?

I guess I can just explain to concierge what's up and get a room key when I return to my hotel. I this what everyone else is doing (if staying in hotel)?

[bluewin888]

Does new york require 2 of 3 or 3 of 3? any link to actually New York code? thanks

Part performance in real estate contracts requires 2 of 3 things:
Some payment
Buyer makes permanent improvements.
Buyer is in possession of the property.

[Confused7]

Does new york require 2 of 3 or 3 of 3? any link to actually New York code? thanks

Part performance in real estate contracts requires 2 of 3 things:
Some payment
Buyer makes permanent improvements.
Buyer is in possession of the property.

2/3, though I think it's "substantial improvements" and not "permanent improvements."

[freestallion]

Sorry if this has already been discussed...

I'm looking at the permitted items and exam policy stuff. So we can only bring in the stuff in the clear bag, and the stuff in the clear bag can only be the stuff on the list. So like... we can't bring our hotel room key? Can I have a wallet in my back pocket?

I guess I can just explain to concierge what's up and get a room key when I return to my hotel. I this what everyone else is doing (if staying in hotel)?

I would like to know this too..

Not really looking forward to walking to test center with no phone, no key, and all my items in a clear bag and laptop out in the open

[victortsoi]

does anyone have an attack outline for corporations? I have smartbarprep, lean sheets, but my burned out brain isnt getting it.

[summeisruined]

does anyone have an attack outline for corporations? I have smartbarprep, lean sheets, but my burned out brain isnt getting it.

I use smart prep, it's pretty good ...

I only use smart prep now, it covers everything

but fuck so much admin law, does anyone think we 're gonna be asked about it on the essay part

[xlawschoolhopefulx]

does anyone have an attack outline for corporations? I have smartbarprep, lean sheets, but my burned out brain isnt getting it.

I use smart prep, it's pretty good ...

I only use smart prep now, it covers everything

but fuck so much admin law, does anyone think we 're gonna be asked about it on the essay part

yes, I think the chances are quite high.

Admin was only recently added as a testable topic and has not yet been tested on an essay. It's also going away as soon as NY switches to the UBE. I think that the time is ripe for testing. Luckily there are only 4 major topics that can realistically be tested: (1) requirements for agency rule making under SAPA, (2) rules for agency hearings under SAPA, (3) open meetings law and (4) agency investigations (particularly the exceptions to the warrant requirement).

[sd5289]

As we are all just guessing here, I don't think it'll displace one of the "big" subjects as the main topic (Family Law, Wills, Crim, Corps, etc.), but it might appear in one of the sub-Q's.

[dietcoke0]

Anyone also taking NJ bar on Thurs? I was just going to read over a NJ civ pro outline on Weds night, as I hear that is how to handle taking both. But I can't seem to find one online that isn't part of a full bar program.

Anyone know of a free NJ civ pro outline? Or if it even differs drastically from NY/Fed?

[victortsoi]

confession- in the spirit of the confessions on this site, I'm starting to feel guilty. I put my all into this right after law school, but really burned out and barely able to concentrate besides adaptibar last two weeks. little essay or mpt practice. Tell me im not alone?

[sd5289]

Cross-posting this from the Themis thread. I have a question about no fault insurance stuff after doing a Torts essay practice question:

[+] Spoiler

Torts fact pattern about a rear-end collision while P was sitting at a red light. Themis didn't spend that much time on no-fault insurance, but the rule, as I understand it, is that a P cannot sue a D who has no fault insurance UNLESS he suffers serious physical injury or damages in excess of $50,000. However, I thought the rule also said that you can sue someone who flat out doesn't have the insurance. The fact pattern said zero about whether or not the D was insured, and while I thought about it, I decided that wasn't the issue because there was no mention of it. Surprise, according to the model answer, D had no fault insurance but P sustained a serious physical injury and was thus entitled to sue. So, had this happened on the exam, I would've totally missed it.

Am I to just assume that drivers have no fault insurance in NY unless the fact pattern states otherwise? HALP! I spotted all of the other issues just fine, but this threw me off because the fact pattern didn't tell me one way or the other if the D had no fault insurance.

[xlawschoolhopefulx]

Cross-posting this from the Themis thread. I have a question about no fault insurance stuff after doing a Torts essay practice question:

[+] Spoiler

Torts fact pattern about a rear-end collision while P was sitting at a red light. Themis didn't spend that much time on no-fault insurance, but the rule, as I understand it, is that a P cannot sue a D who has no fault insurance UNLESS he suffers serious physical injury or damages in excess of $50,000. However, I thought the rule also said that you can sue someone who flat out doesn't have the insurance. The fact pattern said zero about whether or not the D was insured, and while I thought about it, I decided that wasn't the issue because there was no mention of it. Surprise, according to the model answer, D had no fault insurance but P sustained a serious physical injury and was thus entitled to sue. So, had this happened on the exam, I would've totally missed it.

Am I to just assume that drivers have no fault insurance in NY unless the fact pattern states otherwise? HALP! I spotted all of the other issues just fine, but this threw me off because the fact pattern didn't tell me one way or the other if the D had no fault insurance.

Almost positive that NY drivers are required to have no fault insurance, which is perhaps why it was assumed? But I could be wrong on that.

[sd5289]

Cross-posting this from the Themis thread. I have a question about no fault insurance stuff after doing a Torts essay practice question:

[+] Spoiler

Torts fact pattern about a rear-end collision while P was sitting at a red light. Themis didn't spend that much time on no-fault insurance, but the rule, as I understand it, is that a P cannot sue a D who has no fault insurance UNLESS he suffers serious physical injury or damages in excess of $50,000. However, I thought the rule also said that you can sue someone who flat out doesn't have the insurance. The fact pattern said zero about whether or not the D was insured, and while I thought about it, I decided that wasn't the issue because there was no mention of it. Surprise, according to the model answer, D had no fault insurance but P sustained a serious physical injury and was thus entitled to sue. So, had this happened on the exam, I would've totally missed it.

Am I to just assume that drivers have no fault insurance in NY unless the fact pattern states otherwise? HALP! I spotted all of the other issues just fine, but this threw me off because the fact pattern didn't tell me one way or the other if the D had no fault insurance.

Almost positive that NY drivers are required to have no fault insurance, which is perhaps why it was assumed? But I could be wrong on that.

Yeah, no, I knew that. Just didn't realize that if there's no mention of it at all, you assume they have it.

[orangecup]

As we are all just guessing here, I don't think it'll displace one of the "big" subjects as the main topic (Family Law, Wills, Crim, Corps, etc.), but it might appear in one of the sub-Q's.

I think so too. And based on the Barbri rubrics, you can still pass while completely missing out on an issue. The Kaplan lecture barely even covered agency investigations or open meeting laws.

[summeisruined]

Is 120 MBE enough to pass or way too short?

Because i just can"t reach 140 or so (and i've done hundreds of questions)

[michael2015]

I promise I'll stop this:

BarBri Wills Essay 5:

Bob's Elective Share.

Why do we less out $25,000 of exempted property instead of 39,000 (which would be cash + exempt value of the car given)? Why are we only lessing out the cash/cash substitutes received when calculating the elective share?

[victortsoi]

Is 120 MBE enough to pass or way too short?

Because i just can"t reach 140 or so (and i've done hundreds of questions)

are you talking about raw or scaled score? a 120 raw might be 130-135 scaled.

[summeisruined]

Is 120 MBE enough to pass or way too short?

Because i just can"t reach 140 or so (and i've done hundreds of questions)

are you talking about raw or scaled score? a 120 raw might be 130-135 scaled.

Raw.

I'm not american (LLM) so i'm super lost with the system of grading here.

Back home we don't have raw/scale/curve and stuff, it is much more easier to calculate.

[victortsoi]

that is a good raw score, the average is around 127 raw according to barbri. Thats in teh 130s scaled.

[xlawschoolhopefulx]

I promise I'll stop this:

BarBri Wills Essay 5:

Bob's Elective Share.

Why do we less out $25,000 of exempted property instead of 39,000 (which would be cash + exempt value of the car given)? Why are we only lessing out the cash/cash substitutes received when calculating the elective share?

haven't done the essay yet but based on the information you provided -- I'm pretty sure that spouses are entitled to certain things outside of the elective share, such as one car with a value up to $25k. So the value of a car left to the wife would not be taken out of the augmented estate when calculating the elective share.

I say that having only read the one sentence you provided, so take that with a grain of salt.

[throwawayusername93]

confession- in the spirit of the confessions on this site, I'm starting to feel guilty. I put my all into this right after law school, but really burned out and barely able to concentrate besides adaptibar last two weeks. little essay or mpt practice. Tell me im not alone?

Not alone.

I studied pretty intensely ~June 18-July 6, then have had to work a lot of hours since, so my bar prep has been getting crusty there on the back burner. I've been putting in a few hours here and there mainly on MBE Qs, but I'm going to hit the rest of the NY stuff I haven't done yet this weekend. I remembered enough of Torts/K/Civ Pro/Crim to get by, so I've only actively studied Evidence, Property, Con Law, some NY distinctions, Family, Partnerships, Agency, and Admin. I'm about to do Corps and NY Practice, then tomorrow I'm doing Wills/Trusts and then Sunday I'm just planning on reading and issue-spotting a bunch of the NY essays. Monday I'll probably freak myself out w/ the NYMC, then do some MBEs to feel better, then drink a double Canadian Club (whoo US Airways) on the (short) flight to Buffalo while scanning through the skeletal outlines. I've done about 600 MBE questions total (which seemed like a lot until I realized all these people are doing like 2000+), I'll probably do another 100-200. I haven't really improved much if at all on the MBE since day 1 of my MBE studying, but I feel like I'm doing well enough to pass so I guess that's the way it is for me (refraining from posting %s because even though I don't think I'm doing great, it might stress others out). I studied Evidence/Property/Con Law because my %s were lowest on those, but I keep getting questions about things I just haven't covered (speech in nonpublic forums? non-self-executing treaties?) so I find myself guessing more in those areas and I can't be bothered to actually read a full outline.

I'm skipping the K/Torts essays because it seems like you're able to get along just fine (i.e., good enough to pass) without really mastering the NY distinctions.

I did one practice MPT (I'm doing Themis) and thought it was pretty much a joke, and got an 8/10 whatever that means, so I'm not sweating that and you shouldn't either. I wrote about twice as much as I needed to and went into all kinds of side points because what else do you do with 90 minutes of your life.

Bottom line, yes there are a lot of subjects, but I've gotten A or better grades on tough 3-hour exams with less studying than this, and the bar for passing this is way lower than getting an A in law school... so crack the whip a little bit these next few days, stick to memorizing the general rules, and let's hope we both end up on the right side of just barely.

[Ahyis]

Cross-posting this from the Themis thread. I have a question about no fault insurance stuff after doing a Torts essay practice question:

[+] Spoiler

Torts fact pattern about a rear-end collision while P was sitting at a red light. Themis didn't spend that much time on no-fault insurance, but the rule, as I understand it, is that a P cannot sue a D who has no fault insurance UNLESS he suffers serious physical injury or damages in excess of $50,000. However, I thought the rule also said that you can sue someone who flat out doesn't have the insurance. The fact pattern said zero about whether or not the D was insured, and while I thought about it, I decided that wasn't the issue because there was no mention of it. Surprise, according to the model answer, D had no fault insurance but P sustained a serious physical injury and was thus entitled to sue. So, had this happened on the exam, I would've totally missed it.

Am I to just assume that drivers have no fault insurance in NY unless the fact pattern states otherwise? HALP! I spotted all of the other issues just fine, but this threw me off because the fact pattern didn't tell me one way or the other if the D had no fault insurance.

Almost positive that NY drivers are required to have no fault insurance, which is perhaps why it was assumed? But I could be wrong on that.

Yeah, no, I knew that. Just didn't realize that if there's no mention of it at all, you assume they have it.

I did this one recently, and I seem to remember that SOMEWHERE in the essay it did mention that she had insurance (was it from State X but was good in NY too?) because I remember being sure to apply no-fault garbage because it was obvious she had it...

[sd5289]

I did this one recently, and I seem to remember that SOMEWHERE in the essay it did mention that she had insurance (was it from State X but was good in NY too?) because I remember being sure to apply no-fault garbage because it was obvious she had it...

Nah, this was the one where the P was also drunk, but he had been stopped at a red light when the D rear-ended him. Here's the fact pattern prior to the questions if you're interested:

[+] Spoiler

Peter was in a car stopped at a red light for 15 seconds when his car was struck in the rear by a car operated by Dan. A police officer arrived on the scene and saw Peter standing outside of the car with the engine still running. Dan acknowledged that his car struck the other car in the rear when he took his eyes off the road to adjust his car radio. Dan told the officer he saw Peter emerge from the driver’s side of the car after the collision.

The officer spoke to Peter and smelled alcohol on Peter’s breath. Peter’s speech was slurred. The officer administered a breath test and certain other field sobriety tests, all of which suggested that Peter had consumed alcohol. The officer immediately took Peter to the nearest police station. With Peter’s consent, the officer administered a chemical test to determine Peter’s blood-alcohol content. The test revealed that Peter had .10 of 1% of alcohol in his blood. Peter was arrested for driving while intoxicated. He made no admissions at the scene or at the station with respect to either driving the car or drinking.

Although Peter was wearing a seat belt, he sustained soft tissue injuries to his back and leg, which disabled him for two weeks, as well as a fracture of his left index finger.

Actually, here's the pertinent question too:

[+] Spoiler

Is Peter entitled to maintain an action in negligence against Dan to recover damages for his personal injuries?

I'm thinking that *maybe* the question text "entitled to maintain" should've been my clue. In retrospect I can see it now, and obviously will in the future, but I definitely didn't see it at the time (I've been doing everything "cold" without notes and whatnot for about two weeks, so just going from memory).

[orangecup]

^ I'm not sure I would've spotted that issue either, but I think that's absolutely correct. The last paragraph is illuminating since it discusses the injuries Peter sustained, none of which are "serious" under the No Fault statute to allow him to circumvent it (not death, dismemberment, severe disfigurement, or inability to do material acts of daily life for 3+ months).