Case law

Lewis v. Village Board of Trustees

48 A.D.2d 952 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 5, 1975

. * However, as was found in the report of the hearing officer which was adopted by respondent village, petitioner "made no further effort to secure technical qualified assistance to restore the system at the earliest possible … While contrary or explanatory evidence was offered, our review of the record establishes that there was substantial evidence to find that the- facts were as above recited.

Matter of Dunkez Private Home Care, Inc. v. McDonald

2025 NY Slip Op 06107 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 6, 2025

multiple attempts, he was unable to physically meet with or have telephone contact with petitioner's registered nurse during the surveys, which indicated to him that petitioner did not have in its employ a registered nurse qualified … obtain and maintain personnel records, to ensure that employed aides were properly certified, to conduct proper criminal record checks of petitioner's aide employees and to ensure that aides were properly vaccinated and immunized

Standard Rate & Data Service, Inc. v. State Tax Commission

72 A.D.2d 659 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 25, 1979

Under these circumstances, the commission’s further determination that the publications did not contain "articles” so as to qualify as periodicals is likewise reasonable and proper and should be sustained (Matter of Howard … It having thus been established that the "periodical” exemption is inapplicable here, petitioner’s challenge to the tax assessment clearly must fail because it is undisputed that the publications are tangible personal property

O'Malley v. O'Malley

2024 NY Slip Op 04077 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 31, 2024

"To prevail on a motion to punish for civil contempt, the movant must establish by clear and convincing evidence: (1) that a lawful order of the court, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, was in effect, (2) that the … Moreover, the plaintiff failed to establish that he had made arrangements for the defendant to receive 16.5% of his pension, as was required by the stipulation.

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

Bluebird Partners, L.P. v. First Fidelity Bank, N.A.

11 A.D.3d 232 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 7, 2004

Nor does the termination of First Fidelity as trustee immunize it from liability for damages that continued to accrue afterward as a result of its conduct or inaction while it still held that position (see LNC Invs., Inc. … The charge in this regard was proper, but even if the charge should have referred to plaintiffs “sole or primary purpose” rather than its “sole purpose,” the testimony that the jury clearly accepted was that a lawsuit was

Fehringer v. MLJ Contr. Corp.

2026 NY Slip Op 03779 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 17, 2026

Although the agreement concerned a prior incident from which liability could arise, nothing therein clearly and unequivocally evinced an intent to release the defendant from the consequences of its own alleged negligence … "To qualify as documentary evidence, the evidence 'must be unambiguous and of undisputed authenticity'" ( Shah v Mitra , 171 AD3d 971 , 973, quoting Fontanetta v John Doe 1 , 73 AD3d 78, 86 ).

American Heritage Realty Partnership v. LaVoy

209 A.D.2d 749 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 3, 1994

Co. v Rapid-American Corp. ( 80 NY2d 640, 652 ), "[t]o negate coverage by virtue of an exclusion, an insurer must establish that the exclusion is stated in clear and unmistakable language, is subject to no other reasonable … While we find that such language clearly supports Supreme Court’s conclusion, plaintiffs contend that reliance on Continental Cas. Co. v Rapid-American Corp. (supra) is misplaced.

Matter of Rosa v. New York City Hous. Auth., Straus Houses

2018 NY Slip Op 2552 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 12, 2018

The sealing of a criminal case will not immunize a defendant against all future consequences of the charges, and an administrative tribunal is permitted to consider evidence of the facts leading to those charges when they … Regardless, respondent had the discretion to terminate petitioner's tenancy based on her chronic failure to pay rent alone, which was clearly [*2]established at the administrative hearing ( Matter of Hairston v New York City

Forman v. Bostwick

139 A.D. 333 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 29, 1910

Y. 432 ) the court said: “ In both of these cases the appointments were clearly invalid unless and until the defendants therein could affirmatively establish their respective contentions upon the questions involved, which … These facts appear more clearly from the case as reported in 76 Appellate Division, 405.

Smallwood v. Lupoli

107 A.D.3d 782 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 12, 2013

recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty are (1) the existence of a fiduciary relationship, (2) misconduct by the defendant, and (3) damages directly caused by the defendant’s misconduct (see Palmetto Partners, L.P. v AJW Qualified … The complaint and amended complaint clearly demonstrate that financial gain was the motivation for committing the acts complained of, rather than malevolence toward the plaintiffs (see Etzion v Etzion, 62 AD3d 646, 651 [2009

People v. Corbo

17 A.D.2d 351 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 6, 1962

against the use in a new trial of a verdict upon a prior trial either in evidence or in argument, the interrogation of the appellant regarding his conviction upon the former trial and the nature of the sentence imposed was clearly … Nor does it require much argument to establish the prejudicial nature of such disclosures.

Canter v. American Cyanamid Co.

12 A.D.2d 691 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 2, 1960

The defendant manufactures a dust vaccine for the immunization of chickens against two specific diseases. … It is clearly established as the law of this State that an action for breach of warranty, express or implied, does not lie in the absence of a contractual relationship. (Chysky v. Drake Bros. Co., 235 N.

People v. Robins

242 A.D. 516 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 7, 1934

Because very often our own men are not qualified to do the same work. Q. Are not qualified to do what? A. In our particular case, different ldnd of filling out applications, great many questions. Q. … On the contrary, the defense is as honorable, and when clearly proved, as satisfactory, as any defense which the law permits.”

Grace Plaza of Great Neck v. Axelrod

121 A.D.2d 799 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 19, 1986

Pursuant to Public Health Law § 2803 (2), regulations were promulgated by the Commissioner establishing a reimbursement formula. … Although the Commissioner did not challenge the value of total average equity capital as reported by petitioner, he only allowed $20,430 of it to qualify as an inclusion.

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

People v. Vaughn

275 A.D.2d 484 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 3, 2000

The record establishes that by September 1, 1994, the police possessed information establishing a relationship between defendant and Price, resulting largely from defendant’s periodic stays at Price’s apartment, that defendant … Although these statements were made at a time when defendant was in jail as the result of an illegal arrest for criminal possession of a controlled substance, such arrest does not confer upon defendant unlimited immunity

People ex rel. Kelly v. Milliken

140 A.D. 762 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 16, 1910

Such a transfer is mentioned in the statute, not in any way to establish a -right of transfer, but in limitation of the power of a commission to permit it. … The decision in the Peters case is no authority for the respondent herein, inasmuch as rule 15 of the State Commission is clearly different from rule 26 of the Buffalo commission, which in fact corresponds exactly to old

O'Gorman v. New York & Queens County Railway Co.

96 A.D. 594 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 15, 1904

The learned trial justice, an charging the jury, instructed them as follows: Row, file proper reading of this rule qualifies it as to dogs by the further provision, ‘ that may interfere with the accommodation of passengers … We think the defendant, not being compelled by the law to carry any dogs, could lawfully determine that it would carry none, and that it has clearly and explicitly set forth that purpose in the regulation under consideration

People v. Williams

139 A.D.2d 683 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 18, 1988

In the instant case, the defense counsel clearly created the inference that Edwards’ testimony was devised well after the event in order to meet the exigencies of the case. … Edwards’ testimony was clearly not critical on the issue of identification inasmuch as the defendant acknowledged that he had accompanied Edwards to the scene of the robbery.