Case law

Townshend v. . Frommer

125 N.Y. 446 · New York Court of Appeals · Feb 24, 1891

It is the power to do something about the lands; that is, to dispose of them by a conveyance, that qualifies the trust as active. … in the application of the established rules.

Burch v. Newbury

6 N.Y. 374 · New York Court of Appeals · Jul 1, 1852

It was indispensable to the success of such business that an agency be established in New-York provided with sufficient funds for the purpose of duly honoring and promptly paying their drafts. … Burch & Co. of the New-York city funds, with a view, to their future business, aud clearly within the scope of their partnership.

Babcock v. Utter

1 Abb. Ct. App. 27 · New York Court of Appeals · Sep 15, 1864

In my opinion this conclusion is in conflict with well established principles. … They seem to establish the following propositions: First.

People Ex Rel. Perkins v. . Moss

187 N.Y. 410 · New York Court of Appeals · Feb 26, 1907

In the latter case the proof must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In the former it is sufficient that the evidence shows reasonable ground to believe that the defendant had committed a crime (Code of Crim. … Y. 258 )- where he said: “A subscription made by authority of the board of directors and under the corporate seal, for the building of a church or college, or an almshouse, would be clearly ultra vires, but it would not be

Manocherian v. Lenox Hill Hospital

84 N.Y.2d 385 · New York Court of Appeals · Oct 20, 1994

Thus, under OHA, the named leaseholder had to occupy the apartment as a primary residence in order to qualify for a renewal lease. … First, clearly and expressly, Dolan limits its imposition of the burden on the regulator to demonstrate rough proportionality in the "`essential nexus'" (majority opn, at 394) to cases involving administrative agency impositions

People v. Woods

2026 NY Slip Op 02364 · New York Court of Appeals · Apr 21, 2026

Here, the record does not establish that counsel received notice of the "actual specific contents" ( O'Rama , 78 NY2d 277 ) of two jury notes, submitted on October 9 and 10, 2008, requesting readbacks of the testimony of … Here, defendant alleged a qualifying ground for dismissal—a violation of his constitutional right to a speedy trial ( see CPL 210.45 [5] [a]).

Arlen of Nanuet v. State of New York

26 N.Y.2d 346 · New York Court of Appeals · Apr 16, 1970

The rental income capitalized constituted, at the very least, “ clearly to-be-expected future earnings ” of a category with those allowed in St. Agnes Cemetery v. … Moreover, the choice of the capitalization rate is one of fact and since it is supported by substantial evidence “ is immune from further review ” (St. Agnes Cemetery v.

People v. Tiger

32 N.Y.3d 91 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 14, 2018

The Court concluded that defendant had established a prima facie showing of actual innocence to warrant a hearing. … It is not impossible, as the majority seems to imply, to redress exceptional cases in which a clearly innocent person has pleaded guilty, and simultaneously to avoid eroding the fundamentals of our criminal justice system

Watertown v. STATE PERB

95 N.Y.2d 73 · New York Court of Appeals · May 9, 2000

The court stated that "there is nothing in General Municipal Law § 207-c or the relevant case law which requires a municipality to establish a review procedure with respect to determinations made thereunder," and that to … Because section 207-c does not remove the review procedures from the scope of collective bargaining, bargaining is mandatory if the procedures qualify as a "term and condition" of employment.

The People v. John Wakefield

New York Court of Appeals · Apr 26, 2022

Perlin criticized the PCAST Report, arguing that “NIST lacks expertise in modern statistical analysis”—which would presumably be a prerequisite to being a part of the relevant scientific community that is qualified to … The DNA evidence was clearly testimonial and subject to the Confrontation Clause.

Matter of Gonzalez v. Annucci

32 N.Y.3d 461 · New York Court of Appeals · Nov 27, 2018

Petitioner identified one potential residence prior to his May 2014 conditional release date but that residence did not qualify as SARA-compliant housing. … [FN6] Notably, the record adequately establishes that, based on institutional considerations, Woodbourne was the closest available RTF in which to place petitioner.

Cuomo v. New York State Commn. on Ethics & Lobbying in Govt.

2025 NY Slip Op 00902 · New York Court of Appeals · Feb 18, 2025

The Court concluded that the board ensured the appointment of qualified individuals based on an "objective and nonpartisan basis" ( id. at 333). … Plaintiff has thus failed to establish that the Act is unconstitutional on its face.

Goetcheus v. . Matthewson

61 N.Y. 420 · New York Court of Appeals · Jan 5, 1875

Before this act selectmen had been *Page 435 held liable, at all events, for refusing to receive the vote of a person legally qualified. ( Lombard v. Oliver, 3 Allen; 1, per BIGELOW, Ch. J.; Lincoln v. … It seems plain that as the existence of malice is a fact, it may be proved by the ordinary evidence sufficient to establish facts of this kind. Direct proof would be unnecessary.

The People v. Emmanuel Almonte

New York Court of Appeals · Jun 27, 2019

These were strange omissions given that he knew defendant and codefendant for years, had attended school with them, and had clearly recognized them when he stepped out of his apartment. … The record establishes that counsel’s arguments focused on whether the facts established the application of the existing rule to defendant’s case, not that the rule should be abolished or disavowed because it is unworkable

Prozeralik v. Capital Cities Communications, Inc.

82 N.Y.2d 466 · New York Court of Appeals · Nov 23, 1993

( 466 US 485 , supra ) or Mahoney ( 71 N.Y.2d 31 , supra ), and it would erect a logically impossible test which, by its practical application of governing precedents, would inevitably result in no defamation case ever qualifying … This clearly is not a constitutionally permissible basis for a finding of actual malice ( see , id. , at 666).

The People v. Marina Y. Viviani , The People v. Justin Hope , The People v. Nicole Hodgdon

New York Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 2021

Unlike the Governor’s authority in Executive Law § 552, County Law § 701 does not authorize the court to make a discretionary decision to appoint a special prosecutor to displace or act in parallel with a qualified District … that a statute must be presumed to be constitutional unless its repugnancy to the constitution clearly appears and every rational and reasonable presumption must first be indulged in favor of the statute”]).

People v. Sanchez

98 N.Y.2d 373 · New York Court of Appeals · Jul 9, 2002

Clearly, there was no "unfairness" as to this defendant ( see Rosenblatt, J., dissenting, 98 NY2d at 406 ). … Indeed, if intentional murder qualifies as depraved indifference murder, there is nothing left of the depraved indifference murder statute.

Langdon v. . Mayor, Etc., of City of N.Y.

93 N.Y. 129 · New York Court of Appeals · Oct 2, 1883

The broad rule thus laid down cannot be sustained by authority. *147 If an office be granted by name, all the immunities of that office are taken by implication. … of the lands given in a patent must be taken together, and the identity of the land ascertained by a reasonable construction of the language used; but if there be a repugnant call, which by the other calls of the patent clearly

The Matter of Nonhuman Rights Project v. James J. Breheny

New York Court of Appeals · Jun 14, 2022

All one can glean from Judge Wilson’s dissent is that elephants qualify, ants do not. What of dolphins—or dogs? … Indeed, “it is always advisable to perceive clearly our ignorance” (Charles Darwin, The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals 66 [1872]).

Davis v. South Nassau Communities Hospital

26 N.Y.3d 563 · New York Court of Appeals · Dec 16, 2015

and warning his patient for the protection of unknown third persons potentially jeopardized by the patient’s driving upon leaving the physician’s office” where the physician allegedly administered to the patient certain immunizations … Moreover, in almost all instances in which courts are asked to establish a duty, the courts must draw the line somewhere.