Case law

Lake Ontario, Auburn & New-York Railroad v. Mason

16 N.Y. 451 · New York Court of Appeals · Dec 5, 1857

Although the language of this section is general, and broad enough in the absence of qualifying circumstances to embrace both classes of subscriptions, as well those prior as subsequent to the incorporation of the company … The principle established by these cases is that, whatever may be the forn or language of a subscription to the stock of an incorporated company, ever) person who in any manner becomes a subscriber for or engages to take

Potter v. . Ogden

136 N.Y. 384 · New York Court of Appeals · Jan 17, 1893

Hall was appointed administrator of his estate, and after duly qualifying entered upon the performance of his duties. … I think it was clearly insufficient for several reasons.

City of Rochester v. . Rochester Railway Co.

182 N.Y. 99 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 6, 1905

Y. 33 ), been regarded as warranting a different view of the relations established by the resolution and legislation of 1869. … What the defendant might claim and establish for itself was not before us.

The People v. . Pinckney

32 N.Y. 377 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 5, 1865

Said commissioners, on being qualified, shall meet and organize “ The Metropolitan Fire Department,” by electing one of said commissioners to be president, and appointing a person to be secretary. … Their places and powers, if any there be, are clearly subject to the authority of the legislature; because the constitutional inhibition applies only to offices existing at that time; and I, therefore, refrain from pursuing

Matter of New York Civ. Liberties Union v. New York State Off. of Ct. Admin.

2025 NY Slip Op 05784 · New York Court of Appeals · Oct 21, 2025

"Clearly the requisite professional relationship was established . . . ."]; Rossi , 73 NY2d at 591-593 ; Matter of Gilbert v Office of the Governor of the State of N.Y. , 170 AD3d 1404 , 1405 [3d Dept 2019]; Matter of Shooters … However, OCA failed at the first step to establish that relationship.

Matter of People (Lawyers Westchester M. T. Co.)

288 N.Y. 40 · New York Court of Appeals · Apr 23, 1942

Y. 238 ) as establishing that a class action cannot be maintained in behalf of all the certificate holders to enforce the guaranty. … It is, of course, true that each certificate holder acquired an individual right to enforce his guaranty contract when he purchased his certificate, but in the *48 declaration of trust here involved it is clearly indicated

Moscow Fire Insurance v. Bank of New York & Trust Co.

280 N.Y. 286 · New York Court of Appeals · Apr 11, 1939

Equitable Life Assurance Society (supra), and the doubts there expressed or implied are not to be either confirmed or removed until the questions are more clearly presented. … The property from its nature is subject to the laws of this State, and both the property and “ the complete and separate organization ” analogous to a domestic corporation are immune from the control of any foreign power.

Avery v. New York Central & Hudson River R. R. Co.

121 N.Y. 31 · New York Court of Appeals · Apr 15, 1890

The witness was not shown to be qualified to give such an ■opinion, and the question assumed the insufficiency of the opening ; a matter which it was not for the witness to determine. … J., where a witness had been asked what in her opinion was the amount of damage to plaintiff caused to her boarding'house by a boiler manufactory on defendant’s premises, said, “ it was clearly wrong. * * * It was the business

In Re the Probate of the Last Will & Testament of Eysaman

113 N.Y. 62 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 12, 1889

Such evidence was important and material upon the issue tried and is clearly .within the letter and spirit of .those transactions to which the Code prohibits an interested witness from testifying. … It was clearly intended *77 to operate as a substitute for prior statutes that related to subscribing witnesses alone, and there was no reason for including other persons in its provisions.

People v. Smith

2025 NY Slip Op 07082 · New York Court of Appeals · Dec 18, 2025

"When a defense declared by statute to be an 'affirmative defense' is raised at a trial, the defendant has the burden of establishing such defense by a preponderance of the evidence" (Penal Law § 25.00 [2]). … Under all other subdivisions of first-degree robbery, the Legislature clearly stated that to secure a conviction it is the People's burden to prove the object caused or was "readily capable of producing death or injury"—not

Rathbone v. . Wirth

150 N.Y. 459 · New York Court of Appeals · Oct 27, 1896

It apportions the powers of government, with such limitations as are appropriate to keep their exercise clearly defined. … The provision, therefore, for a quorum, to consist of any number of attending members, is clearly in conflict with the Constitution.

Rodgers v. Village of Tarrytown

302 N.Y. 115 · New York Court of Appeals · Jan 18, 1951

, beyond interference from the courts, unless shown to be arbitrary, and the burden of establishing such arbitrariness is imposed upon him who asserts it. … Div. 693 , affg. 184 Misc. 775 , wherein the qualifying acreage was also fixed at ten.)

People v. Buie

86 N.Y.2d 501 · New York Court of Appeals · Oct 26, 1995

Inasmuch as her statement qualified under that exception to the hearsay rule, she was allowed to testify to it. … It did not qualify as an admissible exception to the hearsay rule under the present sense impression rule because it was not properly corroborated, and because its proponent did not establish the need for it.

New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. v. McBarnette

84 N.Y.2d 194 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 1994

the relief sought” in order to resolve which Statute of Limitations is applicable ( 49 NY2d, at 229 ; cf., Koemer v State of New York, 62 NY2d 442, 447 [Solnick rule does not govern when "a specific limitations period is clearly … Because of this variety in the types of notice and hearings that may be held, Lakeland’s reference to "notice and hearing” as a means of distinguishing reviewable administrative acts from those that are immune from article

The People v. Yoselyn Ortega

New York Court of Appeals · Nov 20, 2023

The Supreme Court emphasized that forensic evidence “is not uniquely immune from the risk of manipulation,” particularly by law enforcement, nor is it insulated from the possibility of incompetence (id. at 318-319). … Applying “clearly established Supreme Court precedent,” the Second Circuit rejected this Court’s rationale in Freycinet (id. at 136).

The Bank of Genesee v. . the Patchin Bank

13 N.Y. 309 · New York Court of Appeals · Dec 5, 1855

*Page 316 The evidence in this case tended to show, and perhaps it established, that the bill in question was drawn, accepted and endorsed for the accommodation of the railroad corporation, and to enable that corporation … That the defendant, by its properly authorized officers, represented to the plaintiff that this bill was one which it held and owned, was clearly inferable from the evidence *Page 317 It was, on its face, made payable to

People v. Ohrenstein

77 N.Y.2d 38 · New York Court of Appeals · Nov 27, 1990

No such legislation authorized the activities in question here, however, and clearly none could have done so. . … , Audit and Internal Control Act of 1987 (L 1987, ch 814) established certain accounting and reporting procedures.

Gillet v. . Moody

3 N.Y. 479 · New York Court of Appeals · Jul 5, 1850

There is, however, other proof beyond that of stopping, payment; and clearly this must be regarded as a broken bank on the third of December, 1841. … They are not corporations in a qualified sense, as within the intent and meaning of some particular statute ; but are corporations to all intents and purposes.

Rapp v. Carey

44 N.Y. 157 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 1978

. *168 When acting in the exercise of his executive powers, as in this respect, the Governor of the State should be immune from judicial interference (Gaynor v Rockefeller, 21 AD2d 92, 98 , affd 15 NY2d 120 ). … Clearly, the function of making the laws is peculiar to the Legislature.

Barr v. Wackman

36 N.Y.2d 371 · New York Court of Appeals · Apr 1, 1975

Thus, it is well established that a demand will be excused where the alleged wrongdoers control or comprise a majority of the directors. (See, e.g., Ripley v International Rys. of Cent. … Considered most favorably to the plaintiff the board’s acts, as a necessary part of a series of intertwined events and agreements which benefited the affiliated directors rather than Talcott, cannot be regarded as immune