Case law

Irwin v. . Curie

171 N.Y. 409 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 10, 1902

The principles established in that case have been frequently indorsed and never challenged in this court, and are applicable to the situation presented by this complaint. … And, clearly, the courts should do so, for, according to the complaint it appears that his customers consented that he should make an arrange ment with an attorney by which a share of the profits resulting should go to him

The People v. Jorge Espinosa

New York Court of Appeals · Nov 21, 2023

The law on an omitted claim need not be “definitively settled” at the time of trial and the claim need not be “a clear winner” before its omission can qualify as ineffective assistance (Turner, 5 NY3d at 483). … As the Court explained, there is no “category of witnesses, helpful to the prosecution, but somehow immune from confrontation” (id.).

The People v. . Gonzalez

35 N.Y. 49 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 1866

In the light of this evidence, undisputed and unexplained, the crime they committed in darkness is as clearly open to view as if they had perpetrated it in the blaze of noonday. … So far as human sagacity could foresee, the perpetrators of the crime were secure of absolute, immunity.

City of New York v. State

86 N.Y.2d 286 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 15, 1995

"A municipal corporation, created by a state for the better ordering of government, has no privileges or immunities under the federal constitution which it may invoke in opposition to the will of its creator” (Williams v … Clearly, however, they fail to point to any specific fund in which they are entitled to a proprietary interest.

Farmers' Bank of Fayetteville v. Hale

14 N.Y. 53 · New York Court of Appeals · Nov 17, 1874

The circumstances are somewhat peculiar, but applying the analogies of the law and established principles, we must determine the true meaning of the act. … Unless there is, in the act itself, a clearly expressed intent not to make the provisions of the first section a substitute for the existing statutes, so far as the banking associations of the State are concerned, I should

Council of Supervisory Associations of Public School v. Board of Education

23 N.Y.2d 458 · New York Court of Appeals · Jan 15, 1969

Furthermore, I would agree that temporary appointments are permissible to give the board an adequate opportunity to prepare a new examination designed to establish a “ special eligible list ” of persons particularly qualified … Such a distinction is clearly violative of not only the Federal (U. S. Const., 14th Amdt., § 1) but our own State Constitution (art.

Kalisch-Jarcho, Inc. v. City of New York

58 N.Y.2d 377 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 1983

At this purely procedural juncture, to require a rote refrain of an objection so “clearly made and overruled” would have been superfluous (Kulak v Nationwide Mut. Ins. … More pointedly, an exculpatory clause is unenforceable when, in contravention of acceptable notions of morality, the misconduct for which it would grant immunity smacks of intentional wrongdoing.

People Ex Rel. Flanagan v. Board of Police Commissioners

93 N.Y. 97 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 1883

The commissioners, who were acquainted with the relator and with the roundsman who testified in reference to the charge made against him, were better qualified, from their knowledge of the men and from their familiarity with … We think the charge, as presented, was clearly sufficient, and as the objection urged was not raised upon the trial it is not available in reviewing the proceeding.

Schlereth v. . Schlereth

173 N.Y. 444 · New York Court of Appeals · Feb 10, 1903

That under such circumstances the vesting in the beneficiaries will not take place or the future executory limitations take effect until such future time arrives, *450 is fully established by.the decisions of this court. … The postponement of the time of payment of a gift is not important, that alone will not qualify the absolute character of the ownership.

In Re the Final Accounting of Selleck

111 N.Y. 284 · New York Court of Appeals · Nov 27, 1888

The surrogate added the items, because the executor’s testimony established them as credits to the estate. … We think this action of the General Term is clearly an error, and that it is unwarranted by statute.

Aikin v. . the Western Railroad Corporation

20 N.Y. 370 · New York Court of Appeals · Dec 5, 1859

If, then, the city of Albany possessed the power to convey the exclusive right described in this agreement, that right is now clearly vested in the plaintiffs. The power is claimed: I. … The consent here required, clearly extends to the connection to be made.

Belfast & Angelica Plank Road Co. v. Chamberlain

32 N.Y. 651 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 5, 1865

The tally kept by the toll-keeper, at the defendants' request, determined nothing as to the liabilities of the defendants, *Page 654 and in no sense qualified or limited the claim of the plaintiffs for the tolls. … The conclusions of the referee upon these facts are clearly correct, and the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Warney v. State

16 N.Y.3d 428 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 2011

Because the State, in waiving *435 its sovereign immunity from suit, has consented to have its liability “determined in accordance with the same rules of law as applied to actions in the supreme court,” except where superseded … “[T]he allegations in the claim must be of such character that, if believed, they would clearly and convincingly establish the elements of the claim, so as to set forth a cause of action” (Solomon v State of New York, 146

Zabriskie v. . Smith

13 N.Y. 322 · New York Court of Appeals · Dec 5, 1855

III., ch. 7, which clearly shows that such a cause of action is separable from the person of the owner.” And Story, J., in Comegys v. … A dilatory defence, which a plea in abatement is considered to be, is not favored; but he who is entitled to avail himself of it must interpose it promptly, according to the established forms.

Matter of People v. Juarez

31 N.Y.3d 1186 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 27, 2018

issuance of the indictment ( see Marin , 86 AD2d at 42 [observing that contesting a denial of a motion to quash a subpoena on direct appeal is an "avenue of relief . . . totally unavailable to (a subpoenaed nonparty), who is clearly … The law was intended to "make New York State—the Nation's principal center of news gathering and dissemination—the only state that clearly protects the public's right to know and the First Amendment rights of all legitimate

Marx v. Ontario Beach Hotel & Amusement Co.

211 N.Y. 33 · New York Court of Appeals · Apr 14, 1914

This rule is well established, but we think it has no application to the case at bar. … This was clearly erroneous. (Reynolds v. Robinson, 64 N.Y. 589 ; Guiterman v. Liverpool, N. Y. & P. S. S. Co., 83 id. 358; Link v. Sheldon, 136 id. 1.)

Dolan v. . People

64 N.Y. 485 · New York Court of Appeals · Apr 4, 1876

If more or less should be drawn no harm would be done any accused person, provided a sufficient number of qualified jurors were drawn and impanueled. … It would be quite absurd so to construe the statute as to enable a person charged with murder, under the third subdivision of section 5, to establish a defence by proving that he designed the murder.

Ryan v. . the People

79 N.Y. 593 · New York Court of Appeals · Jan 27, 1880

As to the witness Butler it does not clearly appear that the indictments against him were for acts committed on that day, although it might be inferred that one of them was. … There are so many reasons for such conduct, consistent with innocence that it scarcely comes up to the standard of evidence tending to establish guilt, but this and similar evidence has been allowed upon the theory that the

People v. Stanard

42 N.Y.2d 74 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 9, 1977

The defendant, a New York City police officer at the time, was called as a witness and gave sworn testimony, under a grant of immunity, on two occasions in November, 1968. … Section 210.50 of the Penal Law requires that proof of falsity in a perjury prosecution "may not be established by the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness.”

Pennsylvania RR Co. v. State of NY

11 N.Y.2d 504 · New York Court of Appeals · Jul 6, 1962

Our study establishes that the courts below were correct in holding that neither the 1954 legislation nor the plan leading up to it constituted or gave rise to a contract between the State and the plaintiffs. … to certain qualifying railroads ( 191 U.