Case law

Trudy-Ann W. v. Joan W.

73 A.D.3d 793 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 4, 2010

Specifically, the Family Court incorrectly found that Trudy-Ann had not established dependency on the Family Court, had not established that she was abused, neglected, or abandoned, and had not established that it would not … Accordingly, it is clearly in Trudy-Ann’s best interest to continue living with her aunt in the United States (id.). Mastro, J.P., Miller, Leventhal and Belen, JJ., concur

Matter of Living Real Estate Group, LLC v. Douglas Elliman, LLC

2023 NY Slip Op 05366 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 24, 2023

Elliman established that the parties had agreed to submit their commission dispute to arbitration and that the dispute generally came within the scope of the agreement ( Cooper v Bruckner , 21 AD3d 758, 759 [1st Dept 2005 … Contrary to Living NY's view, Elliman's arbitration demand clearly spells out the nature of the dispute — that its agent did all the work of bringing the buyers to the seller and negotiated and obtained a contract of sale

Battistella v. Society of New York Hospital

9 A.D.2d 75 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 20, 1959

Plaintiff’s expert first testified that there was a margin of error with qualified radiologists of around 10%. … These evidently show clearly the pathological-shadow spot.

Kozlowski v. City of Amsterdam

111 A.D.2d 476 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 9, 1985

At trial, plaintiff essentially established that decedent was intoxicated at the time of his arrest, was uncooperative during segments of the booking process and expressed suicidal intentions. … Term properly excluded a letter from defendant’s Chief of Police which concerned the implementation of recommendations made by the Medical Review Board and correctly determined that plaintiff’s expert witness had not been qualified

Claim of Kalevas v. J. H. Williams & Co.

27 A.D.2d 22 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 28, 1966

At most the Workmen’s Compensation Law provides that an insurance carrier may maintain rehabilitation bureaus operated by qualified physicians (Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 13-j, subd. [1]), and that an employer or carrier … The Legislature has clearly not required submission to rehabilitation as a condition for an award — all of its pronouncements with import to rehabilitation having established purely voluntary procedures ■—and we see advanced

Crossett v. Wing Farm, Inc.

79 A.D.3d 1334 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 9, 2010

As a threshold matter, we are not persuaded by defendants’ argument that they qualified for the homeowner exemption from liability (see Labor Law § 240 [1]; § 241 [6]), which is inapplicable to owners who use their house … Under settled law, “[a] tree is clearly not a ‘building’ or a ‘structure’ . . . ; it is a product of nature” (Lombardi v Stout, 80 NY2d at 295-296 ; see Lewis-Moors v Contel of N.Y., 78 NY2d 942, 943 [1991]; Lysiak v Murray

In re the Arbitration between Albany County Sheriffs Local 775 & County of Albany

27 A.D.3d 979 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 23, 2006

A court may not vacate an arbitration award except in those limited situations where the award is “violative of a strong public policy, is totally irrational or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the … Here, article VIII, section 8 expressly continues an employee’s seniority during any period of absence caused by a work-related disability, which is precisely the scenario established by the uncontroverted facts in this matter

Singer v. Walker

39 A.D.2d 90 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 11, 1972

Clearly, Frederick Singer utilized the hammer to break open the rock. … The record did not establish so clearly, as urged by defendant, that the hammer should only be used for chipping. The witness Walker testified he “ would use a hammer to split open a rock ”. Dr.

Stevens v. Kirby

86 A.D.2d 391 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 14, 1982

No proof was offered to establish the admissibility of the police reports as business records and they were not independently offered into evidence. … Clearly, the Liquor Authority report, because of this, does not qualify as an admissible business record * (see People v *396 Gower, 42 NY2d 117 ; cf.

Matter of Amedure v. State of New York

2024 NY Slip Op 04295 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 26, 2024

With respect to canvassing paper ballots, that mandate is clearly satisfied by Election Law § 9-209 (1). … For the foregoing reasons, we find that petitioners have failed to establish that Election Law § 9-209 (2) (g) is in conflict with the NY Constitution.

Organization of New York State Management/Confidential Employees, Inc. v. Lawton

106 A.D.2d 48 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 24, 1985

Petitioners contend that on its face the statute clearly applies only where there is one vacancy and, therefore, cannot be used here to make appointments to 12 vacancies. … Where an eligible list established by competitive examination contains only two more persons than the number of vacancies in the position for which the list has been established, the effect of this rule is to allow appointment

Sparrock v. City of New York

219 A.D.2d 705 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 25, 1995

it is further, Ordered that the award of costs is to abide the event of the new trial or trials; and it is further, Ordered that, prior to any new trial, the plaintiff Philip Spar-rock shall submit to an examination by a qualified … Since the stairway in question was outside the building, it was clearly not an interior stair.

Claim of Carkey v. Island Paper Co.

177 A.D. 73 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 7, 1917

While the Commission was fully warranted in making the decision which it did under the statute as then construed, clearly under the recent decisions in Matter of Grammici v. Zinn ( 219 N. … by subdivision 5 of section 14, which provides “If it be established that the injured employee was a minor when injured, and that under normal conditions his wages would be expected to increase, the fact may be considered

Bruno v. New York News, Inc.

89 A.D.2d 260 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 4, 1982

lottery as a “gyp”, and accusing it of “systematically cheating” the public and being without a conscience on the stated basis of those facts constitute nothing more than the kind of “rhetorical hyperbole” which was held immune … Clearly they can be reasonably read as accusing someone of intentionally denying winners the prize money to which they were rightfully entitled, and then concealing that fact.

Williams & Co. v. Collins Tuttle & Co.

6 A.D.2d 302 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 1, 1958

The courts have long passed beyond the immunizing of scheming wrongdoers merely because the latter were farsighted and fleetfooted enough to avoid obvious categorical liability for harm intended and inflicted (cf. e.g., Rice … Where liability is to be imposed for preventing one from making a particular contract, the courts have required more than a showing of qualified probability that the contract would have been completed but for the tortious

People v. Diaz

209 A.D.2d 1 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 16, 1995

We find that the remaining evidence, absent the alleged hearsay statements, clearly supports a finding that the People established a prima facie case of conspiracy to sell a controlled substance. … No issue was raised by defendant as to the unavailability of the coconspirator as a witness since codefendant David Rodriguez, who was indicted at the same time, elected not to waive immunity and not to testify (People v

People v. Castaldo

146 A.D.3d 797 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 11, 2017

The Supreme Court determined that the evidence was legally insufficient to support this charge because (1) no qualified expert evidence of what exactly constitutes a choke hold was presented, leaving the grand jurors with … “A duty which is ‘clearly inherent in the nature of the office’ encompasses those unspecified duties that are so essential to the accomplishment of the purposes for which the office was created that they are clearly inherent

Santaiti v. Town of Ramapo

153 N.Y.S.3d 554 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 15, 2021

Contrary to the Town's contention, it was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law based upon the governmental function immunity defense. … To establish that a municipality created a special relationship by voluntarily assuming a duty, a plaintiff must show: (1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf

People v. Dominguez

2024 NY Slip Op 06280 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 12, 2024

Although the surveillance footage was too grainy to clearly identify the shooter, it was consistent with the eyewitness's account of the incident, and defendant's DNA was found on a gun recovered near the scene of the shooting … Nor did the statement qualify as a dying declaration , as there is no evidence "the statement was made while the victim was under a sense of impending death with no hope of recovery" ( see People v Nieves , 67 NY2d 125, 133

People v. Sanders

36 A.D.3d 944 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 30, 2007

The Drug Law Reform Act (L 2004, ch 738; hereinafter the 2004 DLRA) established a new sentencing structure for laws which had been enacted in 1973 and were commonly referred to as the Rockefeller Drug Laws. … A subsequent enactment of the Legislature in 2005, effective October 29, 2005, retroactively extended the revised sentencing provisions of the 2004 DLRA to certain qualified inmates who had been previously convicted of class