Case law

Davis v. Davis

128 A.D.2d 470 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 26, 1987

In 1966, he established a Keogh retirement plan and, in 1971, he established a joint pension plan for himself and the other employees of the professional corporation. … This ruling did not foreclose the wife from establishing the value of the professional corporation.

Sledziewski v. Cioffi

137 A.D.2d 186 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 19, 1988

Additionally, Vander Loop specifically reviewed the proceedings by which Cioffi was accorded privileges and confirmed that he was properly deemed qualified to hold privileges at the hospital. … As such, the hospital established prima facie that the hospital was not responsible for the surgical report of which plaintiff complains.

Barry v. Crimmins

23 A.D. 272 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 15, 1897

it was attempted to qualify the witness, the evidence was objected to and excluded. … It is sought to justify the ruling in question upon the ground that the plaintiff had been clearly shown to be an experienced workman accustomed to the quarrying, handling and moving of stones, including the putting of the

Ingraham v. Maurer

39 A.D.2d 258 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 29, 1972

The respondent asserts that the temporary injunction order was clear and unambiguous and that the moving papers clearly established violation of the order of the court and that there was no issue raised which would warrant … The defendant- was as qualified as any agent of the respondent to state whether or riot the matters required by the prior order had been complied with.

Toussie v. County of Suffolk

26 A.D.3d 506 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 28, 2006

Finally, we note that although a cancellation may seem unfair to a successful bidder, this prospect is one of the clearly stated risks of bidding at a public auction. … It was clearly spelled out prior to the bidding and was not a condition which the petitioners challenge as illegal per se (see L.J.B.

New York City Transit Authority v. State

211 A.D.2d 220 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 1, 1995

And in ignoring settled law, it was clearly arbitrary and must be annulled. … But as she made the transition, in late summer, from trainee to fully qualified driver, the Union became less cooperative when it became clear to it that such accommodation at Myers’ chosen duty location would conflict with

Lago v. Krollage

157 A.D.2d 49 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 23, 1990

accident, before he entered the racetrack, Cervoni signed an acknowledgment that he had "inspected the track premises, know[s] the risks and dangers inherent in entering the premises and participating in, observing the qualifying … Such an infirmity clearly does not exist here.

In re Kole HH.

61 A.D.3d 1049 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 2, 2009

Each interview— and the victim’s unsworn testimony at the hearing—established that her knowledge of the human anatomy and her graphic description of the alleged sexual activity were clearly inappropriate for a child of her … While respondent, on these facts, may not qualify as a person legally responsible for the victim (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [g]), such conduct, at the very minimum, reveals a fundamental and profound flaw in respondent’s understanding

Poss v. Kern

263 A.D. 320 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 13, 1942

in the examination *322 relating to steam apparatus on the “ steam ” hst and those who had qualified in the examination on the subject of electric power plants on the “ electric ” list. … Y. 571 ), upon which appellants rely to justify their action, is clearly distinguishable.

Patrolmen's Benevolent Ass'n v. City of Buffalo

50 A.D.2d 101 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 12, 1975

The use of the word "shall” in this context, absent "ameliorating or qualifying language * * * is deemed to be mandatory.” (Matter of Mulligan v Murphy, 19 AD2d 218, 223 ; People v Ricken, 29 AD2d 192, 193 .) … Although appellants’ desire to provide adequate police protection during the period of high crime is laudable, the statute clearly prohibits the accomplishment of that goal through the creation of a fourth platoon.

Pelkey v. Brennan

12 A.D.2d 215 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 17, 1961

In a number of instances the language of the sections seems clearly to indicate their primary purpose to be the protection of children’s morals and good habits and conduct. … Turning to section 484-a, which deals exclusively with skating rinks, the provision for ‘‘ a qualified matron ’ ’ as the only attendant required seems to bear no relation to the prevention of skating accidents to children

O'Brien v. Sagbolt LLC

2025 NY Slip Op 05280 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 2, 2025

However, if the court awarded less than the amount agreed to by the parties, such "corresponding reduction shall serve to reduce the Qualified Settlement Fund, and in no event will be added to the portion of the Qualified … [FN1] The agreement defined the "Qualified Settlement Fund" (hereinafter QSF) as "[*3]the account established and controlled by the [c]laims [a]dministrator for the purposes of retaining and distributing the Final Settlement

Stuart v. Tomasino

148 A.D.2d 370 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 23, 1989

Plaintiff Peter Pancucci admitted that he knew false information had been used to qualify him for a loan from The Dime. Plaintiff Rodney Wallace knew that fraudulent income and earnings had been attributed to him. … Clearly, there are issues of fact as to the credibility of the plaintiffs and as to their culpability for the fraudulent scheme.

Consulting Engineers Council of New York State, Inc. v. New York State Department of Transportation

164 A.D.2d 574 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 3, 1991

A feature of this process is the establishment by DOT of maximum overhead and salary guidelines, ostensibly to ensure that the amount paid to consultant firms is fair and reasonable. … As Supreme Court aptly observed, "Nothing in the statute mandates that DOT retain the professional firm that charges the most. * * * Excessive compensation is clearly not the purpose of [the statute].”

Sperrazza v. Kail

267 A.D.2d 692 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 9, 1999

According to Kail, her mother’s name was removed to protect her assets in the event she needed to qualify for Medicaid benefits later in life. … Clearly, there has been no unjust enrichment of plaintiff; in fact, the only parties unjustly enriched are Kail’s children.

Lovett v. Flacke

83 A.D.2d 718 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 23, 1981

Here, there was a clearly demonstrated public need for increasing the water supply to accommodate previously approved condominium units. … This finding was based upon the account of an eminently qualified hydrogeologist testifying on behalf of the Corporation whose views and the underlying basis therefor were adopted by DEC.

Sindoni v. Board of Educ. of Skaneateles Cent. Sch. Dist.

2023 NY Slip Op 03102 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 9, 2023

Because a defamatory statement, standing alone, does not amount to a constitutional deprivation, "the 'plus' imposed by the defendant[s] must be a specific and adverse action clearly restricting the plaintiff's liberty—for … The absolute privilege defense affords complete immunity from liability for defamation to "an official [who] is a principal executive of State or local government . . . with respect to statements made during the discharge

E. B. Latham & Co. v. Mayflower Industries

278 A.D. 90 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 13, 1951

Only in cases where the necessity of equitable interference to prevent a failure of justice is clearly established should such relief be granted (Colson v. Pelgram, 259 N. Y. 370, 375, 376 ). … If Latham, a corporation qualified to do business in New Jersey, deems its rights affected by that litigation, it can readily intervene therein to protect such rights as it claims.

Galarneau v. D'Andrea

184 A.D.3d 1064 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 25, 2020

"To establish the existence of an enforceable agreement, a plaintiff must establish an offer, acceptance of the offer, consideration, mutual assent, and an intent to be bound" ( Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, LLP v … It was plaintiff's burden to establish "the existence, terms and validity of a contract" ( Amica Mut. Ins.

McKinney v. McGoldrick

243 A.D. 210 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 15, 1935

The applicant, in 1921, was duly appointed to the position of assistant secretary to the Transit Commission after he had duly qualified therefor in accordance with the Civil Service Law and rules. … In this the comptroller was clearly in error, as the appellant established before the Special Term below that his salary had been fixed by the Transit Commission, and that the power of the board of aldermen, upon the recommendation