Case law

People v. Robertson

205 A.D.2d 243 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 15, 1994

Since the uncalled witnesses were cousins as well as friends of the complainant, and, since Scott was also allegedly victimized by the complainant’s assailants in the same incident, both Scott and Artis clearly qualified … Clearly, Scott and Artis were in the best position to corroborate or refute the parties’ contentions.

People v. Ryder

146 A.D.3d 1022 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 5, 2017

The brutal beating and choking of the victim, together with defendant's threatening words in the course thereof, clearly demonstrated his intent to kill. … We conclude that, in light of the manner in which the headphones were used, as described by the victim here, they qualify as a dangerous instrument (see People v Ray, 273 AD2d 611, 613 [2000]).

People v. Pixley

150 A.D.3d 1555 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 25, 2017

Defendant thereafter responded affirmatively to County Court’s inquiry if he was “thinking clearly today” and “in good physical and mental health,” and for the remainder of the proceeding responded appropriately and coherently … While defendant initially exhibited reluctance during the allocution to admit his conduct, qualifying his admissions with “supposedly” and claiming that he could not recall what he stole because he had been “half asleep,”

Kaste v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

5 A.D.2d 203 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 18, 1958

By the terms of its policy, the defendant assumed the absolute duty to defend, for there are no words qualifying or limiting the pertinent paragraph in the insurance contract issued by it. … Such a contract under established rules must, in case of doubt or ambiguity, be strictly construed against the insurer, which is responsible for the language used in the policy.

Mount Sinai Hospital v. Triboro Coach, Inc.

263 A.D.2d 11 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 29, 1999

Accordingly, unless Triboro can establish that it qualifies for the narrow exception carved out by the Court of Appeals in Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. … But how does an insurer establish that a patient’s medical treatment was for a condition unrelated to his or her accident?

Matter of Anna D. v. David E.

2026 NY Slip Op 02021 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 2, 2026

"[A] family offense petition may be dismissed without a hearing where the petition fails to set forth factual allegations which, if proven, would establish that the respondent has committed a qualifying family offense" ( … conduct consists of following, telephoning or initiating communication or contact with such person, a member of such person's immediate family or a third party with whom such person is acquainted and the actor was previously clearly

In re the Estate of Meister

39 A.D.2d 857 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 6, 1972

Russell (23 N Y 2d 569) there was a writing, signed by the party to be charged, fully identifying the terms, unequivocally and clearly showing intention to be obligated. … The statute is invoked “ ‘ to supply a cloak of immunity to hedging litigants lacking integrity ’ ” (Cohon & Co. v.

Matter of O'Donnell v. Catapano

2022 NY Slip Op 06525 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 17, 2022

That decision, however, qualifies the date of disablement by further stating that it is also "the date of the first medical evidence for the condition." … A review of the August 24, 1999 decision in its entirety establishes that the date of disablement was July 23, 1998.

All American Moving & Storage, Inc. v. Andrews

96 A.D.3d 674 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 28, 2012

In this action to recover damages arising out of a warehouse fire, Allstate failed to establish as a matter of law that it did not owe the noncontracting respondents a duty of care or breach any duty owed. … Thus, D’Agostino clearly intended to benefit plaintiffs by engaging Allstate to inspect the sprinklers (see MK W. St.

HSBC Bank USA v. Gifford

2024 NY Slip Op 00678 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 8, 2024

Supreme Court denied defendant's motion, finding that the affidavit of service created a presumption of proper service and that defendant had failed to rebut it, stating that, other than defendant's height, the affidavit "clearly … There are narrow circumstances under which such records may qualify for the business records exception to the hearsay rule (CPLR 4518[a]).

Taylor v. Friedman

214 A.D. 198 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 30, 1925

The defendant then set up an alleged defense by way of alleged qualified privilege to each and every alleged cause of action in the complaint. … The defense pleaded here was that of qualified privilege; accordingly the burden was upon the plaintiff to establish actual malice in order to recover. This the court correctly stated to the jury in its charge.

Vrooman v. Prevost

80 A.D.2d 933 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 5, 1981

Petitioner seeks to establish that the issues presented ([1] the noncontract grievance procedure established by Executive Order No. 42 is not an administrative remedy requiring exhaustion befqre judicial proceedings may be … qualify the instant case as an exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies rule.

In re Franklin

40 A.D.3d 1148 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 3, 2007

As to any contention that County Court erred in admitting the People’s evidence without requiring the witnesses to be qualified as experts, respondent’s counsel stipulated to the admission of their reports into evidence. … Although he stipulated to the introduction of the reports of Bernstein and Stone, he clearly noted, on the record, that the stipulation was only to their admission, not their conclusions or factual recitations.

Long Island Lighting Co. v. Public Sevice Commission

137 A.D.2d 205 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 19, 1988

In providing for what LRAC would apply to which contracts, Opinion 86-8 clearly mandated that the LRAC set forth therein would apply only to those facilities commencing operation before 1989 and an entirely new LRAC would … This statute also required electric utilities to both purchase and sell power produced by State qualifying facilities.

Signature Health Center, LLC v. State

92 A.D.3d 11 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 15, 2011

of the Court of Appeals’ recent decisions in McLean v City of New York ( 12 NY3d 194 [2009]) and Dinardo v City of New York ( 13 NY3d 872 [2009]), which clarified and arguably changed the law with respect to governmental immunity … Clearly, having not permitted recovery of interest, the Legislature could not have intended to permit recovery of consequential damages based upon wrongfully withheld reimbursement payments.

Nassau Beekman LLC v. Ann/Nassau Realty LLC

105 A.D.3d 33 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 31, 2013

However, since plaintiffs assertion to that effect is disputed by defendant, plaintiff clearly failed to establish a right to summary judgment on its breach of contract claim against defendant. … At best, that 3:00 p.m. meeting could qualify as partial performance of the alleged oral modification.

Finkel v. McCook

247 A.D. 57 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 3, 1936

He appeared before the grand jury on five different occasions, voluntarily waiving immunity. The testimony given by him occupies over 250 pages of the printed record. … The fact establishing the falsity of his testimony was brought out in a separate legislative investigation.

All American Moving & Storage, Inc. v. Andrews

96 A.D.3d 674 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 28, 2012

In this action to recover damages arising out of a warehouse fire, Allstate failed to establish as a matter of law that it did not owe the noncontracting respondents a duty of care or breach any duty owed. … Thus, D’Agostino clearly intended to benefit plaintiffs by engaging Allstate to inspect the sprinklers (see MK W. St.

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

Deusen v. Norton Co.

204 A.D.2d 867 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 19, 1994

The record clearly shows that Colangelo relied upon his expertise in metals as well as the pathology report to arrive at his conclusion. … Testimony further established plaintiff’s remaining life span of over 40 years.