Case law

Kirchner v. New Home Sewing MacHine Co.

135 N.Y. 182 · New York Court of Appeals · Oct 4, 1892

The plaintiff gave evidence tending to establish these various grounds of recovery. … The rule is very clearly stated by the court in Jackson v.

Uribe v. MERCHS. BANK OF NY

91 N.Y.2d 336 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 1998

Renters expressly waive every presumption of law that loss shall have occurred through Bank’s negligence, and agree that Bank shall not be liable for any loss sustained by Renters unless the loss was caused by some specific, clearly … It concluded that “the clear qualifying language of the safe deposit box rental agreement, which expressly limited authorized items for deposit ‘only’ and ‘solely to those listed, was unambiguous and unequivocally excluded

The People Ex Rel. v. . Nostrand

46 N.Y. 375 · New York Court of Appeals · Nov 10, 1871

These and other authorities establish, that it is sufficient to inform public officers in a general way what their duty is, and to command its performance, unless they can justify or excuse the neglect. … What *382 was intended by the qualifying words in this definition it is unnecessary to surmise, but they do not affect the question in this case.

Newton v. . Bronson

13 N.Y. 587 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 1856

Conceding that it is sufficiently broad to embrace such suits, it clearly has no application to cases where the subject of the action does not lie within any county in this state. … respect to real estate is not conferred" by the probate court. • He is the donee of a power at common law and under the statute; and although it was, by the will, made a condition to his acting under the power that he should qualify

M. T. Bank v. . F. M. Nat. Bank

60 N.Y. 40 · New York Court of Appeals · Feb 9, 1875

To all intents and purposes the plaintiff's property in the wheat was clearly established and beyond any question. … This embraced every thing necessary to establish a lawful demand and refusal, and the plaintiff was not bound at the time to show evidence of its claim.

ST JOSEPH'S PROPS. v. Srogi

51 N.Y.2d 127 · New York Court of Appeals · Oct 16, 1980

It noted (at pp 483-484) that "until 1971 an organization qualified for an exemption only if it was `organized' for an exempt purpose (see L 1971, ch 414, § 2). … A wide variety of corporate purposes qualified for exemptions before the Legislature cut them back in 1971.

Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 6 v. Town of Greenburgh

277 N.Y. 193 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 8, 1938

It is an established rule of construction “ that the different parts of the same act relating to the same subject, must, unless a different intent is so palpable as to admit of no question, be taken together and construed … Conversely, exemption from taxation is the exception and not the rule, and the Legislature must specifically exempt or clearly demonstrate its intent to exempt real property from taxation before any exemption can be claimed

Durham & Moulthrop v. Manrow

2 N.Y. 533 · New York Court of Appeals · Dec 5, 1849

The reasons are stated very forcibly and clearly by Judge Bronson, in the case of Johnson v. Gilbert, ( 4 Hill, 178 ,) and received the sanction of this court in the case of Brown v. … That he then became responsible for the debt of the maker of the note was merely incidental, and could not defeat a valid engagement, nor qualify one so as to render it invalid.

Edington v. . Mutual Life Ins. Co.

67 N.Y. 185 · New York Court of Appeals · Nov 14, 1876

Information thus acquired is clearly within the scope and meaning of the statute. Hone of the cases cited by the appellant’s counsel are in conflict with the interpretation given. In Kendall v. … embracing all the physicians who had attended and prescribed for the insured, and not being restricted to proof from him as a medical examiner the question does not arise whether it would have been competent if made in that qualified

Borelli v. International Railway Co.

240 N.Y. 54 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 3, 1925

The statement was a dictum, for Scala was injured on what was clearly an interurban road to which under the decisions the act as clearly applied and none of the cases cited have any bearing on the question before us. … It is a question of degree and unless the foreign character is established by the plaintiff, “ locality determines the question of jurisdiction.” (State of New York ex rel. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Knight, 192 U.

Yonkers Community Development Agency v. Morris

37 N.Y.2d 478 · New York Court of Appeals · Jul 10, 1975

Federal program, under which the plan here qualified for approved, is to aid cities in the clearance of blighted areas and in their redevelopment. … Indeed, in its reply to defendants’ claims, the agency states that its findings in this regard are conclusive and establish a public purpose as a matter of law.

Hubbell v. Great Western Insurance

74 N.Y. 246 · New York Court of Appeals · Sep 17, 1878

This was clearly equivalent to its reaching the owner, so far as the earning of freight is concerned. … To *257 sustain this judgment he must clearly establish that he could not.

Seligman v. . Friedlander

199 N.Y. 373 · New York Court of Appeals · Oct 25, 1910

Construction will not be based on a single section, which,' when read by itself, appears to overturn a well-established principle of the common law, but that section will be read in connection with all the commands of the … The, omission from section 6 of the qualifying words which appear in section 36 has slight significance when those sections are read together, as obviously they should be.

In the Matter of Oliver Lee Co's Bank

21 N.Y. 9 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 1860

The intention was to protect more adequately the creditors of these institutions, and to take from their proprietors, to a qualified extent, the shield afforded by the corporate personality in which their individual ownership … but their convenience, would show very clearly that they were intended to be. brought within its scope at the expiration of that period.

Clemens v. . Clemens

37 N.Y. 59 · New York Court of Appeals · Sep 5, 1867

The well established rule is clearly and well stated by Judge HOGEBOOM in Harris v. Harris ( ubi supra ). … This clearly appears by the report of the case of Boyce v. The City of St. Louis ( 29 Barb. 650 ).

Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce, Inc. v. Pataki

100 N.Y.2d 801 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 12, 2003

Unless Congress provides otherwise, Indian tribes possess sovereign immunity against the judicial processes of states (see e.g. … For cases holding that an Indian tribe’s absence due to sovereign immunity should not result in dismissal, see e.g.

People v. Wilson

32 N.Y.3d 1 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 14, 2018

Defendant nonetheless contends that the "particularly vulnerable victim" classification is limited to young children and, therefore, an abused domestic partner would not qualify. … This Court has clearly stated that "depraved indifference" is a culpable mental state that reflects a defendant's wanton cruelty, brutality, or callousness, combined with an utter indifference as to whether the victim lives

Caldwell v. . New Jersey Steamboat Co.

47 N.Y. 282 · New York Court of Appeals · Jan 23, 1872

But there are other portions of the charge which clearly confirm the construction above indicated. … And still more clearly is the character of the charge manifested on this subject when the jury came into the court for instructions.

Turcotte v. Fell

68 N.Y.2d 432 · New York Court of Appeals · Nov 25, 1986

In this case plaintiff testified before trial to facts establishing that horse racing is a dangerous activity. … While a participant’s "consent” to join in a sporting activity is not a waiver of all rules infractions, nonetheless a professional clearly understands the usual incidents of competition resulting from carelessness, particularly

Knapp v. Fasbender

1 N.Y.2d 212 · New York Court of Appeals · Apr 27, 1956

If that proposition was ineffective — as it clearly was — that would not invalidate the improvements, which may not have needed ratification. This record does not show what was their legal status. … Y. 111, 116 ) to establish that it is unconstitutional, where this court said: “ The establishing of a board of improvement for the town, and defining its powers and duties with reference to the lighting of the streets in