Case law

Consolidated Edison Co. v. New York State Division of Human Rights

77 N.Y.2d 411 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 26, 1991

Complainant Pamela Easton is a black woman employed in the calendaring unit of petitioner’s law department and, if the qualifications listed in petitioner’s newspaper advertisement for applicants control, she was qualified … He found that the "[practice of promoting white males in available supervision positions in the Calendar Unit has been clearly established [by petitioner’s] method of approaching certain employees and not others, despite

Donohue v. . Whitney

133 N.Y. 178 · New York Court of Appeals · Apr 19, 1892

Before the close of the trial this map did become admissible, but only for a special or qualified purpose. … It is unnecessary to determine how far ancient reputation may be admissible to establish boundary lines.

Koump v. Smith

25 N.Y.2d 287 · New York Court of Appeals · Jul 2, 1969

In 1828 New York became the first jurisdiction to change the common-law rule when it established a statutory privilege between physician and patient. … In light of the strong policy in favor of full disclosure unless the information sought is immunized, the burden of showing the appropriate immunity should be on the party asserting it (Haire v. Long Is. R. R.

Town of Delaware v. Ian Leifer

New York Court of Appeals · Nov 21, 2019

To that end, principal permitted uses in Rural District areas include agriculture, agriculture service establishments, bed-and-breakfast establishments, fish hatcheries, greenhouses, group homes, two-family dwellings and … Thus, unless the provisions are unconstitutional, his proposed use is clearly prohibited in the Rural District under the Town of Delaware Zoning Law and the Town was entitled to enjoin the event (see Zoning Law § 220-11

Overstock.com, Inc. v. New York State Department of Taxation & Finance

20 N.Y.3d 586 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 28, 2013

Active, in-state solicitation that produces a significant amount of revenue qualifies as “demonstrably more than a ‘slightest presence’ ” under Orvis. … We will not strain to invalidate this statute where plaintiffs have not met their burden of establishing that it is facially invalid.

Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany v. Vullo

42 N.Y.3d 213 · New York Court of Appeals · May 21, 2024

The Court also held that nothing in Fulton "clearly conflicts with the holding of [ Serio ]" ( id. at 1075) and that Serio had taken into account aspects of prior Supreme Court rulings emphasized in Fulton —specifically, … Plaintiffs contend that the "religious exemptions qualifying criteria" are not objective but rather "embed[ ] numerous discretionary judgments" in an adjudicator determining whether the organization qualifies or not.

People v. . Greenwall

115 N.Y. 520 · New York Court of Appeals · Oct 8, 1889

The evidence of Mohring above set out was, therefore, clearly incompetent. … The defendant’s guilt was not so clearly established by other proof that it can be said that this evidence was harmless.

People v. . Alfani

227 N.Y. 334 · New York Court of Appeals · Dec 9, 1919

Clearly, the drafting of the bill of sale and chattel mortgage was not practicing or appearing as an attorney-at-law in any court. … The phrase, although general in its nature, is limited and qualified by the prior specific designations. (Burks v. Bosso, 180 N. Y. 341 ; People v. Richards, 108 N. Y. 137 .) The rule of ejusdém geneñs applies.

Hofheimer v. Campbell

14 N.Y. 269 · New York Court of Appeals · Dec 15, 1874

This section does not qualify the directions of section 211. Assuming this construction which is claimed to he the correct one by the counsel for the sheriff, we think the answer contains no defence. 1st. … It is clearly against public policy to permit public officers to receive any benefit, or to bargain, or make any arrangement for a violation of the duties prescribed by law.

People, Ex Rel. King v. . Gallagher

93 N.Y. 438 · New York Court of Appeals · Oct 9, 1883

The first (fourteenth amendment) declares that “ no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, * * * nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction … Was not the relator “ excepted or, excluded ” from the accommodation or privilege afforded by that school by reason only of her “ race or color ” % Clearly she was.

People v. Adessa

89 N.Y.2d 677 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 27, 1997

That rationale is clearly not acceptable. … jurors asked to resolve a credibility dispute between an officer and a civilian would necessarily be strongly inclined to decide it in the police officer’s favor simply because of his or her position in the law enforcement establishment

Hudson River Telephone Co. v. Watervliet Turnpike & Railway Co.

135 N.Y. 393 · New York Court of Appeals · Oct 11, 1892

This immunity from liability does not, however^ extend to acts which are ultra vires, or which are equivalent to a confiscation or condemnation of the property rights of the citizen, unless provision is made for due compensation … This case is clearly distinguishable from that of the Third Avenue Railroad ( 112 N. Y. 396 ) cited at length by plain *406 tiff’s counsel.

Weber v. Lang

11 N.Y.2d 997 · New York Court of Appeals · May 17, 1962

The establishment of the plan was approved by the Board of Estimate by resolution dated July 9,1954, effective July 1,1954. … Training Technicians were qualified for reclassification as Senior Personnel Examiners, and that no further examination was necessary to establish their qualifications.

People v. . Dooley

171 N.Y. 74 · New York Court of Appeals · May 13, 1902

Upon that question the constitutional provision above referred to seems to be clearly applicable. … Under that provision it was held that the second appointment was void and that the first was good “ until a successor is elected and qualified.”

McAnarney v. Newark Fire Insurance

247 N.Y. 176 · New York Court of Appeals · Jan 10, 1928

Moreover, if market value were the rule, property, for which there was no market, would possess no insurable value, a proposition which is clearly untenable. … Clearly, where no sales have been made, the opinion of an expert that the property in question “ will sell ” for a given sum does not establish “ market value,” in the sense of an exclusive criterion of value. “ There cannot

MATTER OF CHRYSLER PROPS. v. Morris

23 N.Y.2d 515 · New York Court of Appeals · Jan 16, 1969

The State Tax Commission presumably was looking after the *521 city's interest by refusing a refund unless the right to it was clearly established. … S., at p. 378 ): "[W]e do not agree that the immunity obtained by the lapse of the time for review is the type of immunity which protects its beneficiary from retroactive legislation authorizing review of the claim."

People v. . Becker

215 N.Y. 126 · New York Court of Appeals · May 25, 1915

So clearly established was the restriction to cases of homicide that a legislative enact *113 ment was deemed necessary to warrant the admission of dying declarations in any other class of cases. (People v. Davis, 56 N. … This evidence seems clearly to have been relevant.

Trump-Equitable Fifth Avenue Co. v. Gliedman

57 N.Y.2d 588 · New York Court of Appeals · Dec 14, 1982

In our view the Appellate Division erred in not vacating an agency determination expressly based upon an administrative regulation clearly inconsistent with the plain words of the governing statute. … Section 421-a does not require “substantial” under-utilization, nor does the provision imply that only one specific type of under-utilization may qualify property for the exemption.

Ely v. . Ehle

3 N.Y. 506 · New York Court of Appeals · Jul 5, 1850

The plaintiff was the owner and had possession constructively, of the flour, although the common'carrier bad a qualified possession. In Barrett v. … Conceding that this distinction exists and is sound, ’ the evidence offered was clearly not material.

ITC Ltd. v. Punchgini, Inc.

9 N.Y.3d 467 · New York Court of Appeals · Dec 13, 2007

After reviewing various possible standards for a mark to qualify for the putative doctrine, the District Court Judge recognized that an “apparent consensus” existed as to what “at the very least . . . must be established … in the relevant American market for a mark to qualify under the ‘well known’ or ‘famous’ mark doctrine”; and that “ITC [had] failed even to establish a triable issue” under that minimum standard (id. at 288).