Case law

People v. Beauchamp

143 A.D.2d 13 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 11, 1988

Thus, not only was defendant clearly on notice that the crimes were alleged to have taken place only during the hours that he was at work, but this was further narrowed by amplification in the bill of particulars as to the … To accord a contrary construction to the statute under these facts would be to cloak adult perpetrators of heinous sexual crimes with a mantle of immunity when they select as their victims infants whose undeveloped mental

In re the Estate of Beckley

63 A.D.2d 855 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 26, 1978

Shortly before the testator’s death on October 21, 1974, appellant moved (on Sept. 1, 1974) to the newly established campus of Christ the King Seminary in East Aurora. … Furthermore, the two entities which could possibly qualify as beneficiaries were known (the Friary of St.

McAfee v. Dix

101 A.D. 69 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 15, 1905

contract was never qualified. … If' it was not qualified or altered, then the defendant must pay the contract price.

People v. Brumfield

2025 NY Slip Op 00764 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 7, 2025

Indeed, "almost all of the relevant facts adduced at trial [with respect to that issue] were [either] undisputed [or clearly established]. … Instead, [on the [*3]issue of the type of firearm allegedly possessed by defendant], the jury was asked to make inferences based on the evidence, a task that we are no less qualified to make" ( id. ).

People v. Judkins

139 A.D.2d 792 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 7, 1988

The subject offenses would seem to qualify as a criminal transaction under both categories, thereby precluding consecutive sentences which aggregate to exceed one year under Penal Law § 70.25 (3). … Clearly, defendant’s act of refusing the correction officers’ order and emphasis of that refusal by use of physical force constitute a single criminal incident.

People v. Roblee

70 A.D.3d 225 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 3, 2009

“To sustain a finding of . . . criminal contempt based on an alleged violation of a court order it is necessary to establish that a lawful order of the court clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate was in effect” and the … People v Henderson, 45 AD3d at 904 ; People v Gayle, 238 AD2d 133, 133-134 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 893 [1997]; see also Judiciary Law § 518 [requiring court to discharge person who is not qualified to serve as juror]),

Van Nostrand v. Froehlich

44 A.D.3d 54 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 17, 2007

This Court specifically held that the extent of plaintiffs’ injuries, and whether such injuries qualify as serious under the Insurance Law, “should generally be left for the damages phase of the trial” (id. at 742). … The courts were responsible for vetting serious injury automobile cases by application of basic summary judgment principles to avoid unnecessary jury trials where the injury is clearly minor (see Zecca v Riccardelli, supra

Paladino v. Adelphi University

89 A.D.2d 85 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 12, 1982

Special Term denied the school’s motion for summary-judgment holding that the established policy of our courts in refusing to entertain lawsuits for educational malpractice did not bar an action in contract nor one based … Clearly, the record fails to bear out of the claim that the school made false representations to the parents.

Applewhite v. Accuhealth, Inc.

81 A.D.3d 94 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 28, 2010

It is basic that the party moving for summary judgment has the burden of establishing the absence of any factual issues to entitle it to judgment as a matter of law. … This statement is clearly insufficient to shift any burden to plaintiffs.

National Life Ass'n v. Thompson

38 A.D. 445 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 1, 1899

This ruling was clearly erroneous. … It was admitted that Freeman was' an officer of the plaintiff corporation, and the defendant was not only entitled to contradict or qualify his testimony as to the particular conversations which Freeman had mentioned, but

Occidental Chemical Corp. v. Public Service Commission

114 A.D.2d 149 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 20, 1986

Finally, of direct pertinence to the instant case, for facilities "developed on or after June twenty-six, nineteen hundred eighty”, the PSC was directed to establish a minimum price of 6 cents per kilowatt hour for mandatory … Thus, this and other expressions of legislative purpose already discussed indicate clearly that the intent was to enhance the fruition of available, productive alternate energy resources, not merely to enhance their commencement

People v. Dykes

86 A.D.2d 191 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 19, 1982

The People argued that the remedy of prohibition was clearly inappropriate because the petitioner had not demonstrated that he was without an adequate remedy at law. … Notwithstanding the fact that the defendant in the case at bar waived immunity and testified before the Grand Jury, which asked numerous questions of the defendant, and that the Grand Jury heard all the available evidence

Giblin v. Pine Ridge Log Homes, Inc.

42 A.D.3d 705 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 12, 2007

Group ( 96 NY2d 398 [2001]) that “[injuries qualifying as grave are narrowly defined” and the “[w]ords in [the] statute are to be given their plain meaning without resort to forced or unnatural interpretations’’ (id. at 401 … Although a surgically removed eye clearly results in a permanent condition, plaintiff wears a prosthesis which is removed only once a year for cleaning.

People v. Kirton

36 A.D.3d 1011 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 11, 2007

Thus, the proof *1014 established every element of these offenses. … Lastly, defendant argues, as he did at the sentencing hearing, that he may not be sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender, despite having two qualifying predicate felonies, because he was never informed during his

New York Steam Co. v. Foundation Co.

123 A.D. 254 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 10, 1908

The evidence establishes and I also find that the work of excavating the street was performed by the defendant with all due care, and that the subsidence of the soil of the street, by which the plain *266 tiff was damaged … The reason for that rule is that the earlier grant is subject to the paramount right of the public to use the street for all lawful street purposes, and is qualified by the implied condition that the streets may be used in

Matter of Heather NN. v. Vinnette OO.

2019 NY Slip Op 9325 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 26, 2019

The two parties are listed as the child's two mothers in some of her medical and immunization records. … Instead, petitioner has clearly maintained her wish for a relationship with the child, and has consistently made every effort to regain contact that was allowed to her by the law.

Boyd v. Haritidis

239 A.D.2d 820 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 22, 1997

Initially, we reject defendant’s claim that the record establishes that plaintiff waived the mortgage contingency clause. … The communications from the bank in the record confirm the diligent and good-faith efforts undertaken by plaintiff to qualify for financing and defendant’s conclusory allegations otherwise are not persuasive.

People v. Cepeda

61 A.D.2d 962 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 27, 1978

Quite obviously, and the People do not so contend, the statement does not qualify as part of the res gestae. The People seek to justify the admission of this evidence as a declaration against penal interest. … Our decisions have never established such a congruence”. (Dutton v Evans, 400 US 74, 81-82 .)

Czarnowsky v. City of Rochester

55 A.D. 388 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 15, 1900

The courts ought not to impute an intent to the Legislature not clearly expressed in direct hostility to the traditions and policy of the past.” … The abrogation of the rule, thus long established, would cause serious inconvenience and confusion.

NMC Residual Ownership L.L.C. v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n

153 A.D.3d 284 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 1, 2017

The documentary evidence does not conclusively establish that the trustee actually purchased the trust assets in its own name before reselling them. … Nor does section 6.02 of the standard trust provisions clearly provide that the trust assets may be purchased by the trustee at the termination price.