Case law

Brown v. Shyne

242 N.Y. 176 · New York Court of Appeals · Feb 24, 1926

Thereafter the trial judge charged the jury that they might bring in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff if they found that the evidence established that the treatment given to the plaintiff was not in accordance with the … Under our law such treatment may be given only by a duly qualified practitioner who has obtained a license. The defendant in offering to treat the plaintiff held himself out as qualified to give treatment.

Iannotti v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

74 N.Y.2d 39 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 13, 1989

If we are to assume, as we must, that the words of the statute were carefully chosen, then that broad language, from which exceptions and qualifying language are conspicuously absent, suggests that the Legislature consciously … I suppose that someone may decide to engage in one of the listed activities on land that is clearly inappropriate for the purpose.

Boikess v. Aspland

24 N.Y.2d 136 · New York Court of Appeals · Feb 27, 1969

The defendant and his books were subpoenaed before that body where he unequivocally demanded complete immunity prior to answering any questions. Upon receiving that immunity, he testified freely. … These allegations, if true, clearly show irreparable injury.” (380 U. S., p. 486.)

Merrick v. . Van Santvoord

34 N.Y. 208 · New York Court of Appeals · Jan 5, 1866

The fact is found, that his contract was that of a corporator, with immunity from personal responsibility. … "In Connecticut the defendant was clearly entitled to protection.

McGregor v. McGregor

3 Abb. Ct. App. 92 · New York Court of Appeals · Sep 15, 1864

That is at the same time its popular meaning, and the word when used simply and without any qualifying language cannot have any other signification than the one which the law and common parlance affix to it. … The statute clearly contemplates that one named as executor may receive letters testamentary though he be not a resident of the State.

People v. Laino

10 N.Y.2d 161 · New York Court of Appeals · Jul 7, 1961

Now the Grand Jury, of course, cannot grant you immunity — blanket immunity, unless you do claim your privilege. A. I want complete immunity on each and every question I am going to answer. Q. … The status of the appellant clearly was that of a prospective defendant when he was subpoenaed, and when he testified and produced documentary evidence before the Grand Jury and the office of the Attorney-General.

Mayor of New York v. Dry Dock, East Broadway & Battery R. R.

133 N.Y. 104 · New York Court of Appeals · Apr 12, 1892

It was, therefore, competent for this defendant upon the trial to give' evidence of such facts .as would establish, or tend to- establish, that the convenience of passengers or of the public did not require the running of … When the law is positive and plain in its terms and requirements, and if it does not conflict with any constitutional rights or immunities, then that strict compliance must be enforced which a fair reading demands, •and construction

Delaraba v. Nassau County Police Department

83 N.Y.2d 367 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 22, 1994

Without the "independent trial” technique, some period of immunity would be created for an individual who has already been tested and with the threat of further testing removed, the motivation to abstain due to fear of detection … This group of employees clearly comes within the narrow exception contemplated by Caruso of an elite corps of volunteer officers subject to extraordinary scrutiny.

Koerner v. State of New York

62 N.Y.2d 442 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 1984

In addition to establishing an administrative forum to redress unlawful discriminatory practices, the Legislature provided the aggrieved person with a cause of *446 action “in any court of appropriate jurisdiction for damages … As noted above, the State is clearly subject to the provisions of the Human Rights Law.

Matter of Basin St.(lubin)

6 N.Y.2d 276 · New York Court of Appeals · Jul 8, 1959

(hereinafter called the operator) were not employees of the establishment which hired them. … Nor can the designation of the operator as “purchaser of the music”, rather than as “employer”, be said to qualify the contractual relationship between the parties.

City of New York v. State

94 N.Y.2d 577 · New York Court of Appeals · Apr 4, 2000

Clearly, a tax paid only by New York State residents who live outside New York City is a matter of substantial State concern. … They present Federal constitutional challenges under the Privileges and Immunities and Commerce Clauses. 5 The Privileges and Immunities Clause The Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution (US Const

Ferres v. City of New Rochelle

68 N.Y.2d 446 · New York Court of Appeals · Nov 25, 1986

This is clearly not the case when someone is injured in a city park like the one here where the public is already encouraged to engage in recreational activities of all kinds. … The municipality would give up nothing but gain immunity.

Lunding v. Tax Appeals Tribunal

89 N.Y.2d 283 · New York Court of Appeals · Dec 18, 1996

and establish a norm of comity between States. … Now applying well-established principles to the facts before us, we conclude there is no violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

Donald v. State

17 N.Y.3d 389 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 23, 2011

Any claim against the State based on the judge’s error would be barred by judicial immunity (Mosher-Simons v County of Allegany, 99 NY2d 214 [2002]). … To establish such liability, claimants would have to show what every tort plaintiff must show: a duty owed to the claimant, a breach of that duty, and injury resulting from the breach.

Lloyd v. . the Mayor, C. of New York

5 N.Y. 369 · New York Court of Appeals · Sep 5, 1851

When that line is ascertained, it is not difficult to determine the rights of parties, for the rules of law are clear and explicit, which establish the rights, immunities and liabilities of *the appellants when in the exercise … The power and duty to perform the latter is clearly ministerial, and falls under the class of private powers; th6 principle of respondeat superior, consequently, applies, and the judgment must be affirmed.

Saumell v. New York Racing Ass'n

58 N.Y.2d 231 · New York Court of Appeals · Feb 23, 1983

We concluded, however, that even though the NYRA was not immune from suit, the burden would be on the plaintiff to establish that in barring him from their tracks, the NYRA was not motivated by the best interests of racing … When that Board determines that they are entitled to a license, it decides that they are qualified to work at the racetracks in this State.

Mrachek v. Sunshine Biscuit, Inc.

308 N.Y. 116 · New York Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 1954

Clearly, they were questions of fact, and, there being substantial evidence to support the findings below, we cannot disturb them. … Defendant relies on the rule, firmly established in this State, exempting hospitals from liability for the negligence of their physicians and nurses in the treatment of patients.

Colt v. New Jersey Tr. Corp.

2024 NY Slip Op 05867 · New York Court of Appeals · Nov 25, 2024

The State has thus clearly disclaimed any legal liability for judgments against NJT, counseling against treating NJT as an arm of New Jersey. … In the United States, the so-called "restrictive theory" of sovereign immunity is enshrined in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA), which establishes criteria for when a foreign state can be subjected to civil

Bolm v. Triumph Corp.

33 N.Y.2d 151 · New York Court of Appeals · Nov 21, 1973

Clearly left intact by Campo , then, is the obligation of the manufacturer to market a product which, *157 in the normal course of its intended functioning, is free of any latent dangers. In Edgar v. … The Edgar court never reached the question of latency since the rule it established would disallow a claim based upon a defect of the most latent nature if the defect did not cause the initial accident.

Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. v. Montana Board of Investments

7 N.Y.3d 65 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 6, 2006

Sovereign Immunity and Comity Before this Court, MBOI does not seriously press its claim of sovereign immunity, recognizing the controlling authority of Nevada v Hall ( 440 US 410 [1979] [states do not have immunity from … Clearly, MBOI bears responsibility for the transaction at issue. Finally, the record does not support MBOI’s claim that DBSI agreed to pay a premium for the Pennzoil bonds.