Case law

Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind

3 N.Y.3d 295 · New York Court of Appeals · Oct 26, 2004

The first two elements necessary to establish a claim of discrimination are not in dispute. Plaintiff is an African-American woman, qualified for the job she held at the Guild. … Clearly, termination constitutes an adverse action. Plaintiff concedes that she intended to resign from the Guild on October 22, 1994, effective immediately.

People v. Sanders

56 N.Y.2d 51 · New York Court of Appeals · May 18, 1982

People v McGee, 49 NY2d 48, 57 [overt act of one coconspirator attributable to other to establish offense of conspiracy].) … These admissions, coupled with the other references to Brown throughout the conversations between defendant and Goldberg, all of which were taped prior to defendant retaining counsel, clearly established defendant’s involvement

Herring v. Hoppock

1 N.Y. 409 · New York Court of Appeals · Jul 1, 1857

If not technically liable as a trespasser *413 for the taking, he was clearly liable for the conversion of the property by an illegal sale thereof. … It is impossible, however, to distinguish the case from those cited, and we ought not to disturb the rule which has been established.

Harrison v. . Scott

203 N.Y. 369 · New York Court of Appeals · Nov 21, 1911

But the facts in this case as bearing on the intent of the vendee may be clearly and widely distinguished from *374 those which have been assumed. … These conclusions are not at variance but rather in harmony with the rules laid down by the text writers and established by various decisions.

Sanders v. . Soutter

126 N.Y. 193 · New York Court of Appeals · Apr 14, 1891

The precise lines upon which the plaintiff intends to try the case have not been very clearly or distinctly drawn, and the complaint in some respects is wanting in that definiteness and degree of particularity essential to … Soutter, one of the sons, qualified and were appointed executors of this will.

Mobil Oil Corp. v. Syracuse Industrial Development Agency

76 N.Y.2d 428 · New York Court of Appeals · Jul 5, 1990

SIDA scheduled a public hearing for November 30, 1987, and established a deadline of December 14, 1987, for the submission of written comments on the DEIS. … Indeed, we noted in that case that to deny standing would insulate planning and zoning decisions of the kind involved in Har from judicial *435 review, which would clearly be inimical to the public interest (id.).

Maharaj v. City of New York

2025 NY Slip Op 02143 · New York Court of Appeals · Apr 15, 2025

I summarize here the cases that establish this distinction and control our analysis on this appeal. … Applying these established principles of tort law easily resolves this appeal.

Merrick Holding Corp. v. Board of Assessors

45 N.Y.2d 538 · New York Court of Appeals · Nov 2, 1978

Nor does the legislative directive specify a particular method for establishing value. And courts, being under no compunction to do so, have not confined assessors to any one course. … Clearly, the county tax authorities need not depend for valuation purposes on the uncertain results of managerial banes or boons.

Comstock v. . Hier

73 N.Y. 269 · New York Court of Appeals · Apr 9, 1878

His defense would have been perfect upon proof of the facts clearly established in the present action, that he indorsed the note for the accommodation of the makers, for a special purpose, to wit, to enable the latter to … The defendants were not parties to that agreement; it was not made for their benefit; did not concern or relate to their liability, or their relations to the plaintiff; and did not release, extinguish, or qualify the right

Newell v. People Ex Rel. Phelps

7 N.Y. 9 · New York Court of Appeals · May 5, 1852

The people of this state, in the exercise of their underived and sovereign authority, established the constitution. … There is another view in reference to the obligations assumed by the state, which clearly shows that they amount to a debt.

Smith v. . the New York Central Railroad Company

24 N.Y. 222 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 1862

What relation have they, by the terms of their contract, established between themselves? … There was nothing in the charge to qualify this proposition; and this is clearly erroneous within the case of Perkins v. The New York Central Railroad Company.

Matter of Burr v. . Voorhis

229 N.Y. 382 · New York Court of Appeals · Jul 7, 1920

It is established law that it is not the office of a writ of mandamus either to confer powers or to impose duties. … The writ issues to compel the performance of official duty clearly imposed by law, where there is no other adequate specific remedy.

Long Sault Development Co. v. Kennedy

212 N.Y. 1 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 9, 1914

Section 4 is: “ The enumeration in this act of the grounds for such repeal shall not be deemed to qualify or impair the full force and effect of the repeal,” and section 5 gives the act immediate effect. e .. … In either case the ownership is representative of all the people, whose interests are property interests or rights and not mere privileges or immunities of citizenship.

People v. Cahill

2 N.Y.3d 14 · New York Court of Appeals · Nov 25, 2003

Defendant’s For-Cause Challenge of Prospective Juror No. 23 In capital punishment jurisprudence, jurors must be death qualified and life qualified if they are to serve. … Instead, “jurors must clearly express that any prior experiences or opinions that reveal the potential for bias will not prevent them from reaching an impartial verdict.

Berman v. City of New York

25 N.Y.3d 684 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 2015

In fact, it clearly states that it does not pertain to attorneys who are engaged in the practice of law on behalf of a particular client. … For instance, the circuit courts have established that the transmission of mass-produced, debt-collection mailings on attorney letterhead, where the attorney did not personally prepare, review or sign the letters is considered

McNeil v. . the Tenth National Bank

46 N.Y. 325 · New York Court of Appeals · Nov 10, 1871

as against parties who took bona fide through the brokers.^ Simply intrusting the possession of a chattel to another as *330 depositary, pledgee or other bailee, or even under a conditional executory contract of sale, is clearly … exercised, are not expressed on the face of the instrument, but remain in confidence between the owner and the depositary, the case cannot be distinguished in principle, from that of an agent who receives secret instructions qualifying

Glacius v. . Fogel

88 N.Y. 434 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 24, 1882

It also appears that he qualified as an executor under the will, and acted as such throughout. … They received it for the estate and were clearly hable to account therefor to. the petitioner. Uo other point is made which requires examination, and the judgment of the General Term should be affirmed.

People v. . Fitzgerald

156 N.Y. 253 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 7, 1898

The circumstances themselves must be established by direct proof and not left to rest upon inferences. … That is the plain mandate of the law, and the force of the proposition should not be weakened and destroyed with the jury by qualifying words.

Kipper v. NYP Holdings Co.

12 N.Y.3d 348 · New York Court of Appeals · Apr 30, 2009

jurisprudence, and has cautioned that such an “approach and analysis . . . would erect a logically impossible test which, by its practical application of governing precedents, would inevitably result in no defamation case ever qualifying … And there is not even circumstantial, let *359 alone “direct,” evidence which could clearly and convincingly establish that defendant’s inaccurate rewrite was published with actual malice.

People v. Van Pelt

76 N.Y.2d 156 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 5, 1990

Indeed, the only potentially qualifying new fact to which the court alluded when it imposed the enhanced sentence was that defendant had forced the complainant to "come in twice and relive the trauma”. … Second, the harm that would result from the withdrawal of the presumption clearly outweighs the burden on the sentencing process under *163 the simple record explication rule.