Case law

Mellilo v. Kracke

261 A.D. 631 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 10, 1941

There was adduced testimony *633 concerning the sufficiency of the map by numerous qualified experts, to wit, engineers, builders, surveyors and an architect. … The opinion does state that “ before this rule can be invoked, the map filed must clearly and unmistakably indicate the grade of the street.

In re Jessica DD.

234 A.D.2d 785 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 19, 1996

Syp was clearly qualified as an expert as she holds a Master’s degree in social work and had over 13 years of experience working with victims of sexual abuse (see, Matter of Nicole V.,11 NY2d 112, 122). … We do not consider this evidence to be sufficient corroboration since no correlation was established between the victim’s relation of the incidents to her mother and the stepfather’s departures.

Carvel Corp. v. Lefkowitz

77 A.D.2d 872 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 4, 1980

The Attorney-General’s authority under article 22 of the General Business Law to conduct an investigation into possible violations of law committed in this State was clearly established. … The Susser and FTC decisions (supra), while entitled to considerable weight, could not indefinitely immunize petitioner’s future practices or clothe petitioner with permanent immunity from State investigation more than 13

Weismantle v. State

210 A.D. 608 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 12, 1924

But it is clearly established that even though no part of claimant's farm was actually touched by the Barge canal construction, the lowering of Fish creek, into which Wood creek emptied, caused the waters to flow much more … Under these circumstances the State cannot claim immunity for the damages to claimant's property that have been established by the evidence. (Fulton Light, Heat & Power Co. v. State, 200 N.

Burke v. Ireland

47 A.D. 428 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 15, 1900

It is quite doubtful if any evidence of the defendant which was read in his favor qualified or explained the admissions made by him respecting the architect’s relation to the building, or established that the subject-matter … Assuming, however, that it did qualify or explain, or tendéd to establish the fact, the court was not authorized, to direct the jury that it was conclusive upon the question.

Dearing v. Dash

33 A.D. 31 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 1, 1898

This clearly vests the trustee with discretionary power as to the time and manner of converting the property transferred to him into cash, and in the carrying out of this provision he is hampered by no limitation as to time … us, when considered in connection with the other portions of the instrument, is nothing more or less than a device by .means of which the corporation sought to carry on its business, and at the same time secure to itself immunity

Golub Service Station, Inc. v. Tax Appeals Tribunal

181 A.D.2d 216 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 16, 1992

This statement is clearly erroneous insofar as it suggests that petitioner would not have been entitled to the tax credit if it had shown that although Jolana and Darel were not registered, they were distributors within the … fuel’ * * * Accordingly, [petitioner] has not carried its burden to show that it qualified for the credit provided under Tax Law [former] § 287” (emphasis in original).

Solarski v. Glass

225 A.D.2d 868 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 7, 1996

In addition, it found that if she were to establish her husband’s eligibility at a future date, the assistance available would be limited for a period of 25 months, because petitioner had transferred assets for less than … Nor did petitioner present any convincing proof that the transfers were made solely for a reason other than to qualify for benefits (see, Social Services Law § 366 [5] [d] [3] [iii] [B]; see also, 42 USC § 1396p [c] [2] [

Grasso v. New York State Thruway Auth.

2018 NY Slip Op 1453 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 7, 2018

"The doctrine of collateral estoppel . . . precludes a party from relitigating in a subsequent action or proceeding an issue clearly raised in a prior action or proceeding and decided against that party or those in privity … In addition, contrary to NYSTA's contention, it is not shielded from liability by the governmental function immunity defense.

People ex rel. Medical Society v. Neff

34 A.D. 83 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 1, 1898

Clearly, then, the allegation of the society that it has an organization for “ mental improvement ” does not bring it within the contemplation of the statu té. … One of the results of these medical societies has been to establish a practically uniform rate of charges, or at least to establish a minimum rate, and to afford a degree of protection to individual practitioners which would

Rahmey v. Blum

95 A.D.2d 294 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 29, 1983

Recently, the Court of Appeals in Matter of Johnson v Blum (supra) has held that section 1988 should be broadly construed to require that the burden of proof rests upon respondents to establish that special circumstances … regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory * * * subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

People v. Hawthorne

35 A.D.3d 499 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 5, 2006

Consequently, the Court of Appeals has emphasized, “a one-on-one shooting or knifing (or similar killing) can almost never qualify as depraved indifference murder” (People v Payne, supra at 272 ; see People v Suarez, 6 NY3d … When the evidence is legally insufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of depraved indifference murder, but is legally sufficient to establish his or her guilt of the lesser-included offense of manslaughter in the second

Springer v. Almontaser

75 A.D.3d 539 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 13, 2010

A motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) to dismiss a complaint based on documentary evidence may appropriately be granted “only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes plaintiffs factual allegations, conclusively establishing … The defendant’s statement that she was stalked and harassed was not an actionable statement of objective fact because it did not have a precise, readily understood meaning, and would clearly be understood by a reasonable

Shattuck v. Laing

124 A.D.3d 1016 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 15, 2015

In this version, created only a few months after the disputed deed, the phrase “more or less” clearly references the amount of acreage conveyed and not the location of the western property line, which is identified without … Notably, these rules of construction were well established before the disputed deeds were drafted (see e.g. Wendell v People, 8 Wend 183, 189-190 [1831]; Doe v Thompson, 5 Cow 371, 373-374 [1826].)

Foster v. Churchill

215 A.D.2d 155 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 4, 1995

Although plaintiffs had, at some point, sold the company that they established, remaining as its chief executive officers, they sought to purchase back the business in 1985, and the TA defendants supplied the required financing … When compelling public policy requires that the speaker be immune from suit, the law affords an absolute privilege, while statements fostering a lesser public interest are only conditionally privileged”.

Planned Consumer Marketing, Inc. v. Coats & Clark, Inc.

127 A.D.2d 355 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 26, 1987

Clearly, laws aimed at protecting the interests of creditors traditionally fall within the States’ domain. … In that case, a corporate official, Barry, in violation of his fiduciary duty under State law to his associate Goben, established for his benefit and that of his family, a profit sharing plan, found to be a qualified plan

O'Sullivan v. City of New York

38 A.D.3d 467 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 29, 2007

Contrary to the court’s holding, we conclude, based upon the foregoing facts, that the record establishes that plaintiff was provided “a full and fair opportunity to litigate” before the Commission the issue of his medical … Thomas’s response, including his July 6, 1999 report and the additional bases for the finding that he was medically disqualified, plaintiff clearly had a sufficient opportunity to address these findings.

Courtesy Sandwich Shop, Inc. v. Port of New York Authority

17 A.D.2d 590 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 19, 1963

Thus, Chief Judge Lehman, speaking for the court, said (p. 315): “ In this case the evidence clearly establishes that the Legislature contemplated that in constructing inland terminals the Port Authority might erect buildings … Property used primarily to obtain revenue or profit is not held for a public use and is not ordinarily immune from taxation, but property held by a State agency primarily for a public use does not lose immunity because the

Hadden v. Consolidated Edison Co.

58 A.D.2d 154 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 30, 1977

In the interval, evidence had been given by plaintiff under a grant of immunity, and by others, at a criminal trial resulting from investigation of the corrupt meeting in which plaintiff had participated, and the full extent … Defendant established a pension plan which provided plaintiff with an escape hatch to forestall his inevitable discharge.

People ex rel. Trojan Realty Corp. v. Purdy

174 A.D. 702 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 1, 1916

To arrive at this conclusion it is not necessary to determine whether or not an appearance before the the tax board, clearly a quasi judicial body, is such practice of the law as is only justified by an attorney. … These circumstances, as we consider, sufficiently establish the fact that this application to the tax board was not made in good faith with the intent and expectation of inducing favorable action by that board.