Case law

Kilberg v. Northeast Airlines, Inc.

9 N.Y.2d 34 · New York Court of Appeals · Jan 12, 1961

The principle which they affirm is clearly the well-established law of this State. … Y. 127 ), charitable immunity (Kaufman v. American Youth Hostels, 5 N Y 2d 1016), incapacity of wife to sue (Coster v. Coster, 289 N. Y. 438 , supra) and the Statute of Limitations (Lipton v.

DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Spitzer

7 N.Y.3d 653 · New York Court of Appeals · Dec 14, 2006

This bill contains clearly expressed guidelines in determining when a ‘reasonable number’ of repair attempts has been surpassed” (Sponsors’ Mem, Bill Jacket, L 1983, ch 444). … Had the Legislature desired to immunize manufacturers from Lemon Law liability when they repaired a vehicle, it likely would have included such language in either the substantive remedy provision (General Business Law § 198

Rios v. Smith

95 N.Y.2d 647 · New York Court of Appeals · Feb 13, 2001

In order to establish the basis for liability, a plaintiff must prove the “extraordinariness or patent foreseeability of the particular situation” (id., at 584). … Pérsico admitted that he established no rules regarding his sons’ use of the ATVs, and did not limit his sons’ ability to lend the ATVs to others.

Southard v. . Benner

72 N.Y. 424 · New York Court of Appeals · Feb 5, 1878

The instruction to the jury, upon which the case hinged, as explained and qualified upon a recalling of the jury for such explanation, and to avoid a misapprehension, was, that if they found that it was-the understanding … If it is satisfactorily established, the result upon the security must be the same.

Crehan v. . Megargel

234 N.Y. 67 · New York Court of Appeals · Jul 12, 1922

Clearly they did not contribute capital in the manner, ■under the conditions and with the results contemplated by the statute as necessary to estabhsh the status of a special partner. … Whatever the origin of the rule, it is qualified to-day by the principle of election, it being held that where a creditor holding the joint obligation of several parties proceeds to recover judgment against part of them it

Whelan v. . Lynch

60 N.Y. 469 · New York Court of Appeals · Apr 20, 1875

That the charge was erroneous, I think is clearly manifest. … He adds, however, immediately afterward, that superfine is the coarsest; that as to its relative value with other grades he does not know, and that he is not qualified to state the value of different grades from time to time

The People v. Marquan M. / County of Albany

24 N.Y.3d 1 · New York Court of Appeals · Jul 11, 2014

Consequently, it is well established that prohibitions of pure speech must be limited to communications that qualify as fighting words, true threats, incitement, obscenity, child pornography, fraud, defamation or statements … Cyberbullying is not conceptually immune from government regulation, so we may assume, for the purposes of this case, that the First Amendment permits the prohibition of cyberbullying directed at children, depending on how

People Ex Rel. Rapid Transit Subway Construction Co. v. Craven

210 N.Y. 443 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 17, 1914

This rule is too firmly established to justify the citation of authority. … In that respect it conforms to well-established rules of law which were clearly stated by Judge Vann in People ex rel. Harris v. Commissioners of Land Office ( 149 N.

Walker v. . People of the State of New York

88 N.Y. 81 · New York Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 1882

The remaining exception relates to the charge that “to establish a defense of insanity it must bo clearly proved,” &c., the exception being to the expression “ clearly proved.” … Tihdal was intended to convey in the McNaghten case,' we think that it was so qualified in the present case, by the connection in which it was used, and the explanation which accompanied it, that, taking the whole charge

City Bank Farmers' Trust Co. v. New York Central Railroad

253 N.Y. 49 · New York Court of Appeals · Feb 11, 1930

Clearly this is so if we view the parts of the statute without reference to verbal niceties, but rather in their logical relation as means directed to an end. … It did not go beyond the administrative practice, established by the ruling of the State Tax Commission, and the legislative policy, declared, with at least' presumptive validity, by the mandate of a statute.

American Committee for Weizmann Institute of Science v. Dunn

10 N.Y.3d 82 · New York Court of Appeals · Feb 14, 2008

Instead, it vaguely refers to a “very substantial bequest” as consideration for the establishment of the memorial fund. … conversations between petitioner’s employees and decedent or to the introduction of testimony consistent with such affidavits at trial (see Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 4519.15 [2d ed] [“(C)orporations are almost immune

Drake v. . Drake

134 N.Y. 220 · New York Court of Appeals · Oct 1, 1892

While that case has been so criticised or limited as not to be treated as establishing a general rule, the proposition is not questioned that in such case in bequests and devises the issue take substitutionally. … Y. 516 ), the meaning of the word “issue” was clearly restricted to children by the terms of the mil as both terms were there used synonymously.

Chemical Bank & Trust Co. v. Streat

263 N.Y. 159 · New York Court of Appeals · Dec 5, 1933

That at some time necessity might require the use of part or even all of the income and the principal was a contingency clearly recognized by the settlor. … Y. 95 ) an absolute gift was made which was qualified only by the manner of payment. The rule in Cochrane v. Schell ( 140 N.

People v. . Rogers

192 N.Y. 331 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 12, 1908

Of course this paper was relevant only as tending to qualify the opnnion expressed by the witness on his direct examination to the effect that the defendant was sane; and it was evidently introduced with the idea that such … Onley alone, and the evidence thus received tended to establish the commission of other and different crimes.

MATTER OF OGLESBY v. McKinney

7 N.Y.3d 561 · New York Court of Appeals · Nov 16, 2006

Judiciary Law § 502 (a) establishes the office of Commissioner of Jurors “for each county in the state” except counties in New York City, where the duties of a commissioner of jurors are performed by the county clerks. … Judiciary Law § 510 (1) provides that to qualify as a juror a person must be “a citizen of the United States, and a resident of the county.”

People Ex Rel. Church v. . Hopkins

55 N.Y. 74 · New York Court of Appeals · Nov 11, 1873

This language clearly includes the power of designating a clerk to *Page 79 act as his deputy, etc. … We surely shall not go far astray in following the precedents established by these able jurists, wise statesmen and rigid economists.

The People v. Devon T. Butler

New York Court of Appeals · Dec 19, 2023

established that an implicit social license sets the boundaries of what acts officers may engage in”], rehg en banc denied 24 F4th 93 [1st Cir 2022], cert denied 143 S Ct 301 [2022]). … County Court held that the canine sniff of defendant’s person did not qualify as a search.

Kaur v. New York State Urban Development Corp.

15 N.Y.3d 235 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 24, 2010

Petitioners in this proceeding are the owners of different commercial establishments located in the West Harlem neighborhood of Manhattan. … Indeed, the due process protections embodied in the EDPL do not even allow for discovery. 11 Rather, in enacting the EDPL, the Legislature clearly evinced an intent for expeditious review of agency determinations, not a trial-like

Curry v. . Powers

70 N.Y. 212 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 19, 1877

This clearly was not a valid assignment of the books as a chose in action, which transferred the title and gave the entire control and ownership to the appellants. … The appellants, on the other-hand, could not make out any title to the books, as the possession was qualified, restricted and conditional.

In Re Proving the Last Will & Testament of Potter

161 N.Y. 84 · New York Court of Appeals · Nov 28, 1899

. - It was also suggested that the contestants did not avail themselves of the qualified ruling of the surrogate on the. admissibility of this evidence, wherein he stated that he would permit them to show what the witness … In respect to the last suggestion, it is sufficient to say that these entire conversations between the witnesses and testatrix, tending to show undue influence or mental incapacity, were clearly competent, and the contestants