Case law

In re Patrick BB.

284 A.D.2d 636 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 7, 2001

Clearly, the inheritance remained patient property. Thus, we find Mental Hygiene Law § 13.29 (a) inapplicable in the instant case. … Otteson reportedly did not qualify as respondent’s special guardian. .

People v. Dowdell

35 A.D.3d 1278 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 22, 2006

The plea allocution does not clearly cast significant doubt upon defendant’s guilt or otherwise call into question the voluntariness of the plea, and thus the plea allocution does not qualify for the narrow, rare case exception … The record establishes that defendant agreed pursuant to the plea agreement to cooperate with the District Attorney’s office, and the District Attorney agreed to recommend a sentence less than 5 to 15 years if defendant cooperated

Chirls v. Chirls

170 A.D.2d 641 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 25, 1991

The court clearly violated this provision by granting the wife an increased percentage interest in the marital residence to cover the difference in value of the parties’ Individual Retirement Accounts. … The plaintiff failed to establish that those charges were in fact incurred or that the defendant was obligated to reimburse her for them.

City Bank Farmers Trust Co. v. Macfadden

13 A.D.2d 395 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 13, 1961

Clearly, such judgment was'not a judgment upon the same cause of action as is here involved. … Clearly, there was no such finding by the New Jersey court.

Transactive Corp. v. New York State Department of Social Services

236 A.D.2d 48 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 26, 1997

Transactive clearly falls within these parameters as it is the primary subcontractor for Fleet Financial Group (hereinafter Fleet) and is also the Nation’s largest processor of systems for the electronic distribution of benefits … it could have qualified.

In re the Claim of Leshner

268 A.D. 582 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 29, 1944

The evidence clearly establishes that in his status as an employee of his corporate enterprises claimant, is in fact a seasonal worker in an occupation of a seasonal nature. … To qualify as one whom the act was designed to assist, in countering the public evil of economic insecurity, it was incumbent upon claimant to show that, for the period for which he claims the benefits, he was totally unemployed

Broward National Bank of Fort Lauderdale v. Starzec

30 A.D.2d 603 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 21, 1968

Appellants urged that the affidavit submitted by respondent was insufficient to establish the value of the premises as required by section 1371 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law on the grounds that Sullivan … He clearly need not he a professional broker.

Francais v. Cusa Bros. Enterprises, Inc.

53 A.D.2d 24 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 1, 1976

The motion papers clearly generate questions of fact which can only be resolved by a plenary trial. Plaintiff urges that Andre v Pomeroy ( 35 NY2d 361 ) is authority supporting her contention. … Plaintiff’s case does not qualify as one of those rare negligence actions ripe for summary judgment. The contributory negligence of plaintiff also appears as an issue of fact in this case.

People v. Craft

123 A.D.2d 481 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 25, 1986

Under the foregoing circumstances, this exculpatory material did not qualify as "[n]ew evidence * * * discovered since the entry of a judgment * * * which could not have been produced by the defendant at the trial even with … The transcript of defendant’s trial, however, clearly establishes that he was defended vigorously and with reasonable competence as to the promoting prison contraband charge under the viable theory of the defense which was

Bryan v. Madden

109 A.D. 876 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 15, 1905

I think a prima faeie case for relief was established, and there can be no doubt of the jurisdiction of the State court. (Bardes v. Hawarden Bank, 178 U. S. 524; Houghton v. Siiner, 92 App. Div. 171 ; Vollkommer v. … The object of the proceedings was clearly to- confer upon the purchaser at the judicial sale all the interest and' rights of the trustee, and I see no reason for not holding that that object was accomplished.

Empire State Chapter of Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. Smith

98 A.D.3d 335 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 6, 2012

Article IX of the Constitution grants to local governments certain “rights, powers, privileges and immunities” with respect to local matters (NY Const, art IX, § 1; see Matter of Kelley v McGee, 57 NY2d 522, 537 [1982]; see … contend that the apprentice training requirement of that section applies to all Wicks Law contracts, and thereby disqualifies out-of-state contractors from large public construction projects in violation of the Privileges and Immunities

Town of Stony Point v. New York State Office of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities

78 A.D.2d 858 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 3, 1980

In the letter dated November 9, 1978, appellants clearly and unambiguously stated their intentions to the petitioner, *859 and further indicated (1) that a specific site had not as yet been selected and (2) in a general way … such a program would be (i.e., that the residents would be doing their personal shopping in the town and participating in “recreational and leisure time activities available in the community” — “under the supervision of qualified

People v. Smith

33 A.D.3d 943 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 24, 2006

Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of robbery in the first … Its determination *944 should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88 [1974]).

Morgan v. Drewry

285 A.D. 1 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 9, 1954

Clearly from the commencement of an action, the attorney who appears for a party has a lien upon his client’s cause of action, and the proceeds thereof in whatever hands they may come. … Such an interpretation would be granting a special immunity to nonresident litigants, a doctrine to which our courts could not subscribe. In Oishei v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. ( 117 App. Div. 110 , affd. 191 N.

People v. Canady

186 A.D.2d 749 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 19, 1992

The court ruled that the two statements qualified as dying declarations. … Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88 ).

City of New York v. The Village of Lawrence

225 A.D. 1 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 21, 1928

accordance with the line as established in the act. … It clearly appears that the words “ property, affairs or government ” were intended to embrace merely matters of municipal administration.

Slabakis v. Drizin

107 A.D.2d 45 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 19, 1985

v Conde Nast Pub. ( 46 AD2d 118, 120 ) we observed: “Patently, ‘knowledge exclusively possessed by prospective witnesses, touching liability and damages, combined with their refusal to speak except by force of subpoena, establishes … The trend is clearly in that direction.” We also reject the argument by respondents that there was some impropriety in the perfection of the appeal in that Tannenbaum was not made a party respondent.

Hollender v. Wallace

180 A.D. 393 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 7, 1917

He duly qualified as such, but resigned in 1912, and plaintiff was appointed administratrix c. t. a. in his place. This action was begun in June, 1915, ten years after the death of Mrs. … That the evidence is. insufficient to establish the due execution of a will by Mrs. Wallace is too obvious to require demonstration.

Koziatek v. SJB Dev. Inc.

2019 NY Slip Op 3419 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 2, 2019

To qualify as documentary evidence, the evidence must be unambiguous and of undisputed authenticity" ( Calhoun v Midrox Ins. … "Materials that clearly qualify as documentary evidence include documents reflecting out-of-court transactions such as mortgages, deed, contracts, and any other papers, the contents of which [*2]are essentially undeniable

Patrowich v. Chemical Bank

98 A.D.2d 318 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 12, 1984

Plaintiff admits that she did not have a formal written employment contract, and her answer to the Chemical interrogatory which sought the terms of her alleged “oral” contract establishes, as a matter of law, that she was … The three-year Statute of Limitations clearly bars this cause of action.