Case law

Clements v. Connecticut Indemnity Co.

29 A.D. 131 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 1, 1898

difficulty in breathing, whereas the uncontradicted evidence is that he had been thus troubled for several years. lie further represented that his habits had always been temperate and sober, although in his first application he qualified … out of the operation of the rule which has just been adverted to, and this contention is not without some substantial foundation ; but the breach of warranty to which we have directed our principal consideration seems so clearly

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.

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 .)

Foley v. Press Publishing Co.

226 A.D. 535 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 7, 1929

Lord Shaw remarked that the law upon the subject of “ what is relevant or required to establish a plea of fair comment * * * will, no doubt, demand early review.” … And Gatley in his treatise on Libel and Slander (p.-373) thus clearly explains the distinction: “ To write of a man that he is ' a disgrace to human nature ’ is a defamatory allegation of fact.

Ass'n for Community Living, Inc. v. New York State Office of Mental Health

92 A.D.3d 1066 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 9, 2012

Furthermore, respondents claim that the recoupment policy qualifies as a “mass change”— which is defined as “a change initiated by the department or the Legislature which affects all or a significant portion of all providers … Notably, we are not convinced that the statute acts to retroactively deprive providers of a vested property right, particularly considering that OMH’s intent to recoup Medicaid exempt income was clearly set forth as a term

Government Employees Insurance v. Goldschlager

44 A.D.2d 715 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 29, 1974

Thus, in an area of difficult proof the source of the accident to the Datsun was established almost beyond cavil. … Eisenberg, 18 N Y 2d 1)— and, clearly, there was no ‘hit-and-run’ vehicle as that term is understood.”

Albro v. Gowland

98 A.D. 474 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 15, 1904

If under the language used in the contract describing the lot as being “ about four rods front by two hundred feet in depth ” we should hold that the word “ about ” qualified the dimension of two hundred feet as well as that … The only question, however, which appears ever to have been mooted was whether the depth was two hundred feet or ten rods and a fraction, and the agent insists that he clearly and distinctly informed the defendant during

Lazard Freres & Co., LLC v. WestGroup Properties LLC

22 A.D.3d 45 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 7, 2005

Clearly, West*Group did redeem all of the interests in the Company held by the Rolim entities. … Clearly, a lender such as Wells Fargo, who provides funds for a refinancing of the borrower’s properties, would not qualify as an investor under this definition.

Meenan Oil Co. v. Long Island Lighting Co.

39 A.D.2d 233 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 19, 1972

The testimony clearly established that Lilco’s share of the space heating market in Huntington has risen steadily since the passage of the ordinance in 1965. … Supp. 860, 869 .) “ But the mere fact that the challenged practice may not be deemed a tie-in does not automatically immunize it from attack under the Donnelly Act.

Unitech USA, Inc. v. Ponsoldt

91 A.D.2d 903 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 6, 1983

NARC is a foreign corporation not qualified to do business in New York. Plaintiff sets forth a prima facie case, supported by documents, for money damages far in excess of the amount attached. … “Such contacts need not be sufficient to establish that defendant is doing business in New York * * * or to establish that the cause of action arose from a transaction performed or having an effect in the state”. (1 Weinstein-Korn-Miller

People v. Hanlon

2025 NY Slip Op 05818 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 22, 2025

In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit, since the record clearly establishes that his plea of guilty was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered after he was fully advised of the rights that he … few exceptions you are specifically giving up your right to have your conviction and sentence reviewed by a higher court," the court's subsequent statement that the "conviction and sentence would be final," without any qualifying

Friends of Animals, Inc. v. Associated Fur Manufacturers, Inc.

61 A.D.2d 141 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 17, 1978

Thus the complaint may not be dismissed on the ground of "qualified privilege.” … Under these circumstances a factual issue is clearly raised as to whether the defendants interviewed orally made the alleged defamatory statement.

People v. Marin

86 A.D.2d 40 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 30, 1982

However, that case is clearly distinguishable on its facts. … The burden was on plaintiff “to establish adequate reasons to justify production” of those statements (p 512).

Candela v. City of New York

8 A.D.3d 45 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 8, 2004

The court further held that Badinsky’s statements were inadmissible hearsay that did not qualify for admission under the “speaking agent” exception since, as a matter of law, Badinsky did not have the “legal authority to … The parties agree that the only evidence offered by plaintiff to establish notice are Badinsky’s out-of-court statements regarding the “ongoing problem” with the windows.

People v. Doe

84 A.D.2d 182 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 31, 1981

Tempera testified without having waived immunity. … In the context of this case, the nondisclosure provisions of the Disclosure Law, as construed by the Board of Public Disclosure, may be fairly regarded as establishing a “qualified privilege” in favor of persons who file

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.

Golub Corp. v. New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal

116 A.D.3d 1261 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 17, 2014

Where, as here, a taxpayer seeks the benefit of a tax credit, the taxpayer bears the burden of establishing that such credit is unambiguously set forth in the statute (see Matter of Piccolo v New York State Tax Appeals Trib … It was petitioner’s burden to show that it was clearly entitled to the credit and, in fact, the statute manifestly provides otherwise.

Grant v. City of New York

111 A.D. 160 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 9, 1906

The court allowed a recovery upon the ground that the city was unable clearly to establish which of the three inspectors appointed on the 23d day of June, 1903) was appointed in the place of the plaintiff. ■ At the time of … Of the two other appointments, Baldwin and Albertson,- it ,would seem that Baldwin was the first to. qualify, and it is claimed by the "defendant- that he thereby took the position of the plaintiff, who had been dismissed

In re the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Proceedings of Frost

179 A.D. 431 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 2, 1917

She qualified and continued in the performance of her duties as such executrix until her death in the year 1903. She never had any accounting. After her death, and in the year 1903, the appellant, Mr. … This is clearly established and there is no contradiction thereof. It was undisputed by Mrs. Owen herself as a witness. She never required Mrs.

In re Crescenzi

136 A.D.2d 386 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 21, 1988

Furthermore, respondent is clearly aware of our orders, and has been represented by counsel at various stages of the proceedings against him. … Clearly, respondent’s conduct has brought him within the purview of these two statutes also.