Case law

People ex rel. Wagner v. Hagan

52 A.D. 387 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 15, 1900

such persons, and such a regulation, it seems to me, comes clearly within the power of the Legislature. … business that, in the hands of incompetent persons, may be productive of injury to others, the legislature may require that before engaging therein, one must satisfy the public authorities that he is competent and morally qualified

People v. Clements

2023 NY Slip Op 06147 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 29, 2023

"The credibility determinations of a hearing court following a suppression hearing are accorded great deference on appeal, and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record" ( id. at 954 [internal quotation … As the law existed at the time of the subject traffic stop in 2017, the odor of marihuana emanating from a vehicle, when detected by an officer qualified by training and experience to recognize it, was alone sufficient to

Anonymous 2011-3 v. Anonymous 2011-4

2023 NY Slip Op 04183 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 9, 2023

"To prevail on a motion to hold a party in civil contempt, the movant must establish by clear and convincing evidence (1) that a lawful order of the court was in effect, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, (2) the … As the Supreme Court determined, the plaintiff did not to refute this showing or establish an inability to comply with these mandates ( see Bauman v Bauman , 208 AD3d at 626 ).

Smith v. Shields Sales Corp.

22 A.D.3d 942 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 20, 2005

Each of the notes sued upon here, however, is an “unambiguous and unconditional promise to pay a specified sum on a specified date and is clearly an instrument for the payment of money only within the meaning of CPLR 3213 … “Plaintiff, having established a prima facie case by proof of the note[s] and default in payment thereon, is entitled to summary judgment in the absence of the submission by defendant [s] of evidentiary facts showing the

Placid-Marcy Co. v. State Liquor Authority

5 A.D.2d 5 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 19, 1957

Notwithstanding the fact the lessee did not qualify for a hotel license because he was to operate only the restaurant and not a hotel in view of the lease-back to petitioner, the lessee applied for and received a hotel liquor … The Authority’s records are said to show that a letter was sent to petitioner as lessor stating that application for a license by the lessee had been approved and the license issued; but this is not clearly established in

National Football League v. Vigilant Insurance

36 A.D.3d 207 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 14, 2006

The NFL appealed to the Second Circuit, which reversed the District Court, holding that the NFL’s “eligibility rules are immune from antitrust scrutiny under the non-statutory labor exemption” (Clarett v National Football … The standard for determining the applicability of an insurance policy exclusion to a particular claim is well established in New York law.

People v. Mercado

230 A.D.2d 488 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 26, 1997

The validity of the verdict is established as well by a comparison with cases where a juror’s response during polling was expressly equivocal. … Her putative illness is not clearly established in the record, and the inference drawn by the dissent is conjectural.

Stainless, Inc. v. Employers Fire Insurance

69 A.D.2d 27 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 10, 1979

Recognition of an insurable interest establishes only the existence of a legally recognizable interest which may be protected by insurance coverage. … Special Term, however, inappropriately assumed that the fact that plaintiffs had an insurable interest in the tower and equipment was enough to qualify them as third-party beneficiaries under the policy issued by Employers

Thompson-Starrett Co. v. Brooklyn Heights Realty Co.

111 A.D. 358 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 16, 1906

In this conclusion we think he was clearly right.There is nothing in the case Under consideration tending to remove x it' from the principle declared in Rinn v. Electric Power Co. ( 3 App. … Div. 305 ) that the simple preparation - of plans and -specifications gives no right to a lien, and is: not embraced within the Lien Law of th¿ State, with the exception of the fact that, in Order • to qualify himself forthe

Matter of Jessica EE. v. Joshua EE.

137 N.Y.S.3d 179 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 25, 2020

We agree with Family Court that these mere suggestions to utilize a mediation service do not qualify as a good faith effort, particularly as the other party was responsive. … The only allegation that clearly discussed conduct after the entry of that order described a single incident that, without more, was insufficient to warrant inquiry into the children's best interests.

School Board of Borough v. Board of Education

54 N.Y.S. 185 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 3, 1898

And that the legislature intended to establish the new system complete on and after July 1, 1898, the language of the Greater New York charter leaves little room for doubt. … Indeed, it is seldom that the legislative intent as to the time when a statutory change shall take effect is so clearly .and unequivocally manifested as it is in this case: “The board of estimate and apportionment shall,

In re McCormack

86 A.D. 362 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 1, 1903

Y. 18, 21 ) the court close the discussion of a similar case with the following: “A person who is a legally qualified voter may leave his home in any part of the State and enter an institution of learning as a student; by … declarations to the board of registry, and as no facts bearing upon the change of residence were placed before the court, which were independent of the temporary residence of the petitioner as a pupil in the seminary, we are clearly

Steinhilber v. Alphonse

115 A.D.2d 844 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 5, 1985

Since the banner was part of a union-organized picket line, it clearly was displayed in the context of a labor dispute (see, Thomas v Flavin, supra). … Moreover, the above privilege is not an absolute privilege, but a qualified privilege.

Williams v. Regan

145 A.D.2d 884 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 29, 1988

Here, petitioner’s own testimony establishes that the January 24, 1984 incident occurred before she reported to work when she slipped and fell on an icy ramp outside the building. … Eligibility cannot be provided by estoppel where a person clearly does not statutorily qualify (Matter of O’Neill v Regan, 114 AD2d 613, 614 ; Matter of Burns v Regan, 87 AD2d 944, 946, appeal dismissed 57 NY2d 954 ).

Brady v. State

172 A.D.2d 17 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 27, 1991

Alternatively, they assert that section 601 (e) discriminates against nonresident taxpayers in favor of New York residents, thereby offending the Privileges and Immunities Clause, Equal Protection Clause and Commerce Clause … Clearly, New York has a substantial legitimate interest in uniformly enforcing its progressive income tax system.

People v. Town of Clarkstown

160 A.D.2d 17 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 18, 1990

The municipal home rule law of the New York Constitution "directs the Legislature to provide for the creation and organization of local governments so as to secure the rights, powers, privileges and immunities granted by … The main issue in that case was whether a local zoning ordinance requiring a special use permit for the establishment of a daycare center conflicted with State law regarding the establishment of day-care centers.

Horwitz v. L. & J.G. Stickley, Inc.

305 A.D.2d 956 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 29, 2003

, (3) [she] was qualified to hold the position, and (4) the discharge occurred under circumstances raising the inference of unlawful discrimination” (So mmerville v R.C.I., 257 AD2d 884, 884 [1999]; see Ferrante v American … Assuming without deciding that plaintiff made the required showing here, the burden then shifted to defendant “ To rebut the presumption of discrimination by clearly setting forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence

Saretsky v. 85 Kenmare Realty Corp.

85 A.D.3d 89 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 12, 2011

In this personal injury action, we reiterate the well-established principle that a finding of “open and obvious” as to a hazardous condition is never fatal to a plaintiffs negligence claim. … The photographs clearly show that the walkway increases in height from one end to the other.

In re the Estate of Anziano

39 A.D.2d 771 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 30, 1972

The testator executed an attorney-supervised will on July 17, 1969; The will established two trusts. … The probated will also established a trust of the residuary estate (less certain outright bequests).

People v. Lochner

73 A.D. 120 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 1, 1902

Such legislation would be clearly within the scope and power of the Legislature to protect the lives of passengers and property. … These establishments are compelled to do baking during the night time in order to supply their customers in the' morning.