Case law

Mayer Bros. Poultry Farms v. Meltzer

274 A.D. 169 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 30, 1948

F. of L. “ Shochtim ” is the plural of “ shochet ”, who is a Hebrew religious official, certified in writing by one or more rabbis as being qualified to slaughter animals in accordance with the ritual requirements and precepts … An intention of Congress to exclude States from asserting their police power must be clearly manifested (Allen-Bradley Local v. Board, 315 U. S. 740 ).

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

DiFlorio v. Worden

303 A.D.2d 924 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 21, 2003

The expert failed, however, to identify any specific rule or procedure that was violated, and thus his testimony was merely conclusory and failed to establish that defendants violated a clearly defined, fixed or “immutable … Defendants are immune from liability for errors in judgment in responding to an unfolding emergency situation (see Kenavan, 70 NY2d at 569 ). “ ‘[I]mmunity reflects a value judgment that— despite injury to a member of the

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

Arnot-Ogden Memorial Hospital v. Axelrod

129 A.D.2d 103 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 11, 1987

A hospital experiences a loss or a profit in caring for the patient depending on whether its actual costs are more or less than the established DRG rate. … received by hospitals, were to be entirely immune from State taxation or regulation.

Huggins v. Moore

253 A.D.2d 297 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 8, 1999

Yet others, though, despite the IAS Court’s undifferentiated classification of all statements as opinion, clearly are actionable factual statements. … Although Stasi did qualify some of these statements in the articles as being based on statements made by Moore, it is well established that libelous statements do not become less libelous when they are repeated by a subsequent

People v. McCants

67 A.D.3d 821 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 10, 2009

The credibility determinations of a hearing court are entitled to great deference on appeal, and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 [1977]). … People v Bennett, 170 AD2d 516 [1991]), “if the exchange occurs in an area rampant with narcotics activity, and is proven by competent evidence such as testimony of a qualified observer, an inference of probable cause may

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

Carr v. Wegmans Food Mkts., Inc.

182 A.D.3d 667 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 2, 2020

"Materials that clearly qualify as documentary evidence include documents . . . such as mortgages, deed[s], contracts, and any other papers, the contents of which are essentially undeniable" ( Koziatek v SJB Dev. … To establish a claim for tortious interference with a contract, the plaintiff must allege "the existence of [his or her] valid contract with a third party, [the] defendant's knowledge of that contract, [the] defendant's intentional

Fernandez v. Fernandez

2024 NY Slip Op 00214 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 18, 2024

Following the judgment of divorce, the wife retained counsel to prepare a military qualifying order (hereinafter MQO), which was signed by Supreme Court (Mizel, J.) in July 2020. … However, under this rubric, on the date the agreement was executed, July 19, 2019, [FN2] the husband was unequivocally bound and clearly had bargained to equally share the pension payout stream with the wife from that day

61 Jane Street Associates v. Kroll

102 A.D.2d 751 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 21, 1984

The Appellate Term reversed, concluding that the facts did not establish either a substantial violation of the obligations of the tenancy or an illegal sublet. We agree- with the Appellate Term. … This paragraph wholly disposes of any lingering question that might be thought to have been presented by the presence of the tenant’s sons-in-law, who at a minimum would now qualify as permitted occupants of the apartment

Stuart v. Stuart

275 A.D.2d 533 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 3, 2000

Moreover, in light of the fact that defendant is clearly capable of supporting himself and his income exceeds that of plaintiff, Supreme Court’s denial of his request for maintenance was also proper (see, Monette v Monette … For the purpose of clarity and to avoid any error in entry of the qualified domestic relations orders, we note that the parties were married on August 17, 1974.

Michael v. Ellwanger

68 N.Y.S. 464 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 8, 1901

It is difficult to tell from the record before us at just what time this note was transferred to the plaintiff, but it is quite clearly established by the testimony that it was after its maturity. … The counsel for plaintiff, in his points, attempts to throw some doubt upon this question, but plaintiff’s own witnesses establish the fact *466 beyond question.

People ex rel. Trustees of the Masonic Hall & Asylum Fund v. Miller

253 A.D. 672 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 14, 1938

Y. 399 ), which was enacted “ to establish a system which should place exemptions of the real property of charitable corporations upon a basis of clearly defined equity, free from the unsystematic partialities of special … Such a double immunity from taxation has not generally been accorded to other charitable organizations.

Nova Casualty Co. v. Central Mutual Insurance

59 A.D.3d 777 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 5, 2009

Plaintiff ultimately agreed to defend Bennett in that action, but disclaimed coverage citing two exclusions contained in the policy that it maintained immunized it from having to pay any damages caused by this fire. … Here, the uncontroverted testimony established that Bennett and Pesano were not using a paint; instead, they were applying a product called “Cabot Clear Solution.”

Fernandez v. Fernandez

2024 NY Slip Op 00214 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 18, 2024

Following the judgment of divorce, the wife retained counsel to prepare a military qualifying order (hereinafter MQO), which was signed by Supreme Court (Mizel, J.) in July 2020. … However, under this rubric, on the date the agreement was executed, July 19, 2019, [FN2] the husband was unequivocally bound and clearly had bargained to equally share the pension payout stream with the wife from that day

Bank of Am., N.A. v. Gonzalez

2023 NY Slip Op 04098 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 2, 2023

Bankruptcy Notice," "Credit Reporting," "Mini Miranda," "HUD Counselor Information," "Equal Credit Opportunity Act Notice," "SCRA Disclosure"/"Military Personnel/Servicemembers," and "Notices of Error and Information Requests, Qualified … "The report of a referee should be confirmed whenever the findings are substantially supported by the record, and the referee has clearly defined the issues and resolved matters of credibility" ( Citimortgage, Inc. v Kidd

U.S. Bank N.A. v. Winnie Realty Group, LLC

2025 NY Slip Op 02097 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 9, 2025

"The report of a referee should be confirmed whenever the findings are substantially supported by the record, and the referee has clearly defined the issues and resolved matters of credibility. … However, "such records may be admitted into evidence if the recipient can establish personal knowledge of the maker's business practices and procedures, or establish that the records provided by the maker were incorporated

Matter of Park Manor Rehabilitation and Health Care Center, LLC v. Shah

129 A.D.3d 1276 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 11, 2015

Petitioner has clearly demonstrated an injury-in-fact particularly since it initiated the rate appeal while it was still the owner/operator (see Matter of Dental Socy. of State of N.Y. v Carey, 61 NY2d 330, 334 [1984]). … An operating certificate "shall only be used by the established operator for the designated site or operation" (10 NYCRR 401.2 [b]).

CRG Fin. LLC v. Amloid Corp.

191 A.D.3d 461 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 9, 2021

The agreement qualified that statement, however, providing, "Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent that . . . the Claim is not listed on the [debt] Schedules, . . . … The quoted language clearly and unambiguously establishes a condition — the debtor's omission of the purchased claim from the debt schedules — which, upon its occurrence, immediately triggers defendant's duty to proportionally