NY July 2015 Support Group Forum

[Ahyis]

Can someone confirm if I can bring my phone and bank atm card inside my clear gallon bag?
Also what time do we need to be at the Javits Center? I have seriously too much studying to do to figure this stupid crap out!!!

No phones allowed. I imagine your debit card is fine, though someone else should confirm.

730AM day 1 and 800AM day 2. Details are on your ticket

Perfect! Thank you!!

Card + cash is ok, no wallet.

[orangecup]

Does anybody know whether physical symptoms are needed or not for near miss NIED? I know they're not for bystander NIED - but everything I read says something different

For direct actions, physical manifestations are required. For bystander actions, severe emotional distress alone is sufficient.

[stronitsing]

Does anybody know whether physical symptoms are needed or not for near miss NIED? I know they're not for bystander NIED - but everything I read says something different

For direct actions, physical manifestations are required. For bystander actions, severe emotional distress alone is sufficient.

thank you!

[victortsoi]

Does anybody know whether physical symptoms are needed or not for near miss NIED? I know they're not for bystander NIED - but everything I read says something different

not for near miss, i think different nied have different criteria.

[w3456]

so card and cash are allowed... does anyone know about house keys and metro card? really annoyed that the security policy doesn't mention those things.

Can someone confirm if I can bring my phone and bank atm card inside my clear gallon bag?
Also what time do we need to be at the Javits Center? I have seriously too much studying to do to figure this stupid crap out!!!

No phones allowed. I imagine your debit card is fine, though someone else should confirm.

730AM day 1 and 800AM day 2. Details are on your ticket

Perfect! Thank you!!

Card + cash is ok, no wallet.

[Hutz_and_Goodman]

Does anybody know whether physical symptoms are needed or not for near miss NIED? I know they're not for bystander NIED - but everything I read says something different

For direct actions, physical manifestations are required. For bystander actions, severe emotional distress alone is sufficient.

Is a bystander allowed to bring a NIED if not a family member?

[orangecup]

Does anybody know whether physical symptoms are needed or not for near miss NIED? I know they're not for bystander NIED - but everything I read says something different

For direct actions, physical manifestations are required. For bystander actions, severe emotional distress alone is sufficient.

Is a bystander allowed to bring a NIED if not a family member?

In NY, no (for MBE, yes).

[Confused7]

Does anybody know whether physical symptoms are needed or not for near miss NIED? I know they're not for bystander NIED - but everything I read says something different

For direct actions, physical manifestations are required. For bystander actions, severe emotional distress alone is sufficient.

Is a bystander allowed to bring a NIED if not a family member?

In NY, no (for MBE, yes).

In NY, I thought bystanders can still bring NIED action even without physical injury if: 1) a special duty is owed to P and it is breached even if no risk of physical harm to P, and 2) If a duty is breached and P is at an unreasonable risk for physical harm. The 3rd situation is when the bystander is closely related to the victim, witnesses injury to the victim, and is in the zone of danger. This is based off my Themis notes.

[orangecup]

Does anybody know whether physical symptoms are needed or not for near miss NIED? I know they're not for bystander NIED - but everything I read says something different

For direct actions, physical manifestations are required. For bystander actions, severe emotional distress alone is sufficient.

Is a bystander allowed to bring a NIED if not a family member?

In NY, no (for MBE, yes).

In NY, I thought bystanders can still bring NIED action even without physical injury if: 1) a special duty is owed to P and it is breached even if no risk of physical harm to P, and 2) If a duty is breached and P is at an unreasonable risk for physical harm. The 3rd situation is when the bystander is closely related to the victim, witnesses injury to the victim, and is in the zone of danger. This is based off my Themis notes.

Hmm, Kaplan never covered that; I looked in the large outline, and those aren't mentioned. We just learned the in NY, bystander NIED attaches where the P is in the zone of danger, P suffers severe emotional distress, and the V is an immediate family member of the P.

You may very well be right, but maybe it's just something that won't be tested so Kaplan decided not to cover it.

[Confused7]

Does anybody know whether physical symptoms are needed or not for near miss NIED? I know they're not for bystander NIED - but everything I read says something different

For direct actions, physical manifestations are required. For bystander actions, severe emotional distress alone is sufficient.

Is a bystander allowed to bring a NIED if not a family member?

In NY, no (for MBE, yes).

In NY, I thought bystanders can still bring NIED action even without physical injury if: 1) a special duty is owed to P and it is breached even if no risk of physical harm to P, and 2) If a duty is breached and P is at an unreasonable risk for physical harm. The 3rd situation is when the bystander is closely related to the victim, witnesses injury to the victim, and is in the zone of danger. This is based off my Themis notes.

Hmm, Kaplan never covered that; I looked in the large outline, and those aren't mentioned. We just learned the in NY, bystander NIED attaches where the P is in the zone of danger, P suffers severe emotional distress, and the V is an immediate family member of the P.

You may very well be right, but maybe it's just something that won't be tested so Kaplan decided not to cover it.

Ah, that's fair. For what it's worth, here's the section from Themis in the unlikely event that any of us can stuff more facts into our brains.

New York Point of Law: Recovery for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

New York allows recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress without physical injury under three circumstances:

i) A special duty owed to the plaintiff is breached, but there is no threat to the plaintiff’s safety or fear of personal harm (e.g., hospital informed the plaintiff—incorrectly—that her mother had died; hospital performed autopsy on the plaintiff’s son over her objections);

ii) A breach of a duty of care to the plaintiff that creates an unreasonable risk of physical harm to the plaintiff (e.g., ski-lift operator failed to secure the plaintiff in his chair); or

iii) The plaintiff witnesses an injury to an immediate family member (e.g., parent, child, sibling, spouse) while in the zone of danger created by the defendant (e.g., the plaintiff witnessed her child killed by a car driven by the defendant that also exposed the plaintiff to a risk of physical harm).

See Kennedy v. McKesson Co., 448 N.E.2d 1332 (N.Y. 1983).

[northwood]

Good Luck on the Bar Exam!!! Rest up, and be confident in both your ability and knowledge. Y'all can do this, as of now, its just simply mind over matter.. Keep going, keep writing and stay in the moment for whatever question/ essay you are doing. as soon as you start the next one, forget about what you just did and keep going!!!


Y'all can do this!!!!!!

[myrtlewinston]

I'm most likely withdrawing from the July Bar. My dog was diagnosed with a spinal problem last week, which could result in paralysis. He hardly ate or drank today, and struggled at my feet. I've worked very very hard, but this little guy deserves my love and care. I hope future boss understands.

So sorry for your predicament. It is really hard and my heart goes out to you.

IMHO, not sure an employer would be so sympathetic to your withdrawal. I think an employer would understand if you failed under the circumstances, but not trying may not sit so well. My two cents.

You're right. She's already scheduled a "celebration" dinner. I will do what I can! Thanks for you understanding.

[myrtlewinston]

What is the formula for calculating a surviving spouse's elective share?

This is what I think, but I am not sure:

Leave out the exempt property
Add testamentary substitutes to the estate
Divide by 1/3
Minus bequests to the surviving spouse

Is that correct?

Sorry, divide by 3. Also, minus debts before dividing. Beyer says my "basic" formula works.

[myrtlewinston]

I'm most likely withdrawing from the July Bar. My dog was diagnosed with a spinal problem last week, which could result in paralysis. He hardly ate or drank today, and struggled at my feet. I've worked very very hard, but this little guy deserves my love and care. I hope future boss understands.

Poor puppy! But why wouldn't you just take it to see how it goes? Stop studying for now, spend some time with the doggy, but take the exam. If you fail, you're no worse off than withdrawing, but you might pass and save yourself a lot of work and anxiety.

Thanks. Studying away now! Pup and I slept in. Maybe that was needed.

[freestallion]

I am a bit confused about the "specific intent" required for an attempt crime. You need the specific intent to commit the underlying offense, so according to Kaplan you can't "attempt" to commit a crime for which the state of mind is recklessness.
Is that right?

So say you are intending to set fire to a desk in a house, and you know that this will probably burn the house but you do not actually intend to burn the house (just the desk). Can you then be convicted of attempt to commit arson, even though your state of mind is knowledge not necessarily intent?

[victortsoi]

I am a bit confused about the "specific intent" required for an attempt crime. You need the specific intent to commit the underlying offense, so according to Kaplan you can't "attempt" to commit a crime for which the state of mind is recklessness.
Is that right?

So say you are intending to set fire to a desk in a house, and you know that this will probably burn the house but you do not actually intend to burn the house (just the desk). Can you then be convicted of attempt to commit arson, even though your state of mind is knowledge not necessarily intent?

arson-malicious state of mind. You can commit arson if you're raging drunk with a lighter and some gasoline, but its likely that if you just pass out in the puddle of vomit and exxon regular before lighting a match you wouldn't be convicted of attempted arson, since you didn't have the specific intent to commit arson. Attempt=higher mental state than some serious crimes.

[Ahyis]

I am a bit confused about the "specific intent" required for an attempt crime. You need the specific intent to commit the underlying offense, so according to Kaplan you can't "attempt" to commit a crime for which the state of mind is recklessness.
Is that right?

So say you are intending to set fire to a desk in a house, and you know that this will probably burn the house but you do not actually intend to burn the house (just the desk). Can you then be convicted of attempt to commit arson, even though your state of mind is knowledge not necessarily intent?

Arson is a malice crime - since NY has all those degrees of arson, (like 4th degree, which is unintentional damage by an intentional fire) I think it's likely you'd be convicted of arson if it damaged the house, but not attempted arson if it didn't (just like, destruction of property or something).

[victortsoi]

can someone explain the difference between spouses elective share and spousal distribution under intestacy?

[orangecup]

can someone explain the difference between spouses elective share and spousal distribution under intestacy?

Spouse elective share is $50k or 1/3 of the net probate estate (spouses will elect this if they receive less under a will). Intestate share is $50k + 1/2 of the remainder of the estate, assuming that there are issue.

[freestallion]

I am a bit confused about the "specific intent" required for an attempt crime. You need the specific intent to commit the underlying offense, so according to Kaplan you can't "attempt" to commit a crime for which the state of mind is recklessness.
Is that right?

So say you are intending to set fire to a desk in a house, and you know that this will probably burn the house but you do not actually intend to burn the house (just the desk). Can you then be convicted of attempt to commit arson, even though your state of mind is knowledge not necessarily intent?

Arson is a malice crime - since NY has all those degrees of arson, (like 4th degree, which is unintentional damage by an intentional fire) I think it's likely you'd be convicted of arson if it damaged the house, but not attempted arson if it didn't (just like, destruction of property or something).

Hmm, that's what I thought. But for *attempt* crime in the fact pattern I described above, the Kaplan answer says this:

At common law, arson was defined as the malicious burning of the dwelling of another. Although the man's primary aim may have been to burn the desk, the desk was located in the partner's study, and dousing the desk with gasoline and setting fire to it would almost certainly have resulted in the burning of the partner's home as well. As such, the man will not avoid criminal liability for attempted arson merely because his primary aim was to burn the desk rather than the rest of the partner's home. Arson does not require the specific intent to burn the entire structure. Even a limited burning of a structure can support a charge of arson.

Maybe I'm missing something..

[victortsoi]

I am a bit confused about the "specific intent" required for an attempt crime. You need the specific intent to commit the underlying offense, so according to Kaplan you can't "attempt" to commit a crime for which the state of mind is recklessness.
Is that right?

So say you are intending to set fire to a desk in a house, and you know that this will probably burn the house but you do not actually intend to burn the house (just the desk). Can you then be convicted of attempt to commit arson, even though your state of mind is knowledge not necessarily intent?

Arson is a malice crime - since NY has all those degrees of arson, (like 4th degree, which is unintentional damage by an intentional fire) I think it's likely you'd be convicted of arson if it damaged the house, but not attempted arson if it didn't (just like, destruction of property or something).

Hmm, that's what I thought. But for *attempt* crime in the fact pattern I described above, the Kaplan answer says this:

At common law, arson was defined as the malicious burning of the dwelling of another. Although the man's primary aim may have been to burn the desk, the desk was located in the partner's study, and dousing the desk with gasoline and setting fire to it would almost certainly have resulted in the burning of the partner's home as well. As such, the man will not avoid criminal liability for attempted arson merely because his primary aim was to burn the desk rather than the rest of the partner's home. Arson does not require the specific intent to burn the entire structure. Even a limited burning of a structure can support a charge of arson.

Maybe I'm missing something..

i think you're getting tripped up on the fact that the D INTENDED to light a fire, not that he AIMED to burn just the desk...the intent is not the motivation, but the voluntary act made with knowledge of the likely consequences of that act.

[freestallion]

I am a bit confused about the "specific intent" required for an attempt crime. You need the specific intent to commit the underlying offense, so according to Kaplan you can't "attempt" to commit a crime for which the state of mind is recklessness.
Is that right?

So say you are intending to set fire to a desk in a house, and you know that this will probably burn the house but you do not actually intend to burn the house (just the desk). Can you then be convicted of attempt to commit arson, even though your state of mind is knowledge not necessarily intent?

Arson is a malice crime - since NY has all those degrees of arson, (like 4th degree, which is unintentional damage by an intentional fire) I think it's likely you'd be convicted of arson if it damaged the house, but not attempted arson if it didn't (just like, destruction of property or something).

Hmm, that's what I thought. But for *attempt* crime in the fact pattern I described above, the Kaplan answer says this:

At common law, arson was defined as the malicious burning of the dwelling of another. Although the man's primary aim may have been to burn the desk, the desk was located in the partner's study, and dousing the desk with gasoline and setting fire to it would almost certainly have resulted in the burning of the partner's home as well. As such, the man will not avoid criminal liability for attempted arson merely because his primary aim was to burn the desk rather than the rest of the partner's home. Arson does not require the specific intent to burn the entire structure. Even a limited burning of a structure can support a charge of arson.

Maybe I'm missing something..

i think you're getting tripped up on the fact that the D INTENDED to light a fire, not that he AIMED to burn just the desk...the intent is not the motivation, but the voluntary act made with knowledge of the likely consequences of that act.

Thank you! Yes, that makes sense. So intent for purposes of attempt is basically the same thing -- intent to do an act, or knowledge/substantial certainty a certain result will occur. For some reason I was thinking that intent for attempt is more specific (not encompassing the knowledge piece)

[jediknight2424]

so i havent looked at mpt stuff at all (i have barbri). should i spend an hr looking at a sample answer? anyone have general mpt advice? at this pt im prioritizing substantive law

[sd5289]

so i havent looked at mpt stuff at all (i have barbri). should i spend an hr looking at a sample answer? anyone have general mpt advice? at this pt im prioritizing substantive law

It's the easiest 10% on the exam, so I'd take a look at some sample problems/answers at the very least.

Some programs (including mine) suggest reading the task memo first, then the "library" of law, and then the facts of the case. I followed that approach and it's worked well on the graded MPT I did as well as the practice ones. The most common form of document is a memo, but one of the practices I did included drafting a closing statement. So while you don't really need to do a full 90 min MPT at this juncture, I'd suggest familiarizing yourself with it since it'd suck to miss out on maximizing that 10%.

[orangecup]

so i havent looked at mpt stuff at all (i have barbri). should i spend an hr looking at a sample answer? anyone have general mpt advice? at this pt im prioritizing substantive law

It's the easiest 10% on the exam, so I'd take a look at some sample problems/answers at the very least.

Some programs (including mine) suggest reading the task memo first, then the "library" of law, and then the facts of the case. I followed that approach and it's worked well on the graded MPT I did as well as the practice ones. The most common form of document is a memo, but one of the practices I did included drafting a closing statement. So while you don't really need to do a full 90 min MPT at this juncture, I'd suggest familiarizing yourself with it since it'd suck to miss out on maximizing that 10%.

I've done a couple, but do you think it's easy to spot whether an assignment is persuasive v. objective? I've only done objective ones