Case law

Garvey v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co.

77 A.D. 391 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 1, 1902

Aside from this consideration, however, it clearly appears from the will of Andrew J. Garvey that it worked an equitable conversion into personalty of all of his real estate. … In addition thereto, she seems to have gone further, and also by affirmative averments established that she has no right to have or receive any of this fund.

Scott v. Aponte

49 A.D.3d 1131 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 27, 2008

reviewed plaintiffs medical history and conducted his own examination, made a prima facie showing that neither plaintiffs shoulder injury nor disc herniation was caused by the subject accident and that, in any event, neither qualified … judgment that “there is no permanent deficit present with regard to [plaintiffs] shoulder function” and that all symptoms relating to her disc herniation were resolved through “nonoperative management,” summary judgment was clearly

Johnston v. Hughes

112 A.D. 524 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 20, 1906

go’ to the trustees of the hospital would be complied with by paying it to the corporation organized for the gratuitous cure of the sick, aged, infirm and poor, which had, to carry out that object of its incorporation* established … well-settled principle that where there is a bequest or devise to an individual sufficient to vest the bequest in the legatee a subsequent provision will not cut down that bequest or devise, unless such an intention is clearly

Edgewater Apartments, Inc. v. Flynn

216 A.D.2d 53 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 8, 1995

Sherman, was not competent to give opinion testimony for the purpose of proving malpractice and negligence by Flynn since only another engineer, and not an architect, could establish a prima facie case against an engineer … As a general principle, it is within the reasonable discretion of the trial court to determine whether or not a witness is qualified to testify as an expert on a specific subject, which discretion will not be upset unless

In re the Last Will & Testament of De Forest

119 A.D. 782 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 8, 1907

for the probate of said will and the appointment of a temporary administrator, an agreement was made by which the executors were to continue said payments; that the will has been admitted to probate, the executors have qualified … establish that they as heirs at law and .next of kin were entitled to a part or all of this estate if the testatrix diéd intestate.'

Pierson v. Greiniman

43 A.D.2d 204 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 13, 1973

It appears from the record that the defendant Greiniman was at all times duly qualified pursuant to the religious laws and *205 customs of Israel for the title or position of Rabbi. … The explanation of Greiniman and Treisser as to the disposition of plaintiff’s checks and cash at most created.issues of credibility which were not clearly passed upon by the trial court.

Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Forty-second Street & Grand Street Ferry Railroad

85 A.D. 530 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 1, 1903

The plaintiff entered into possession by itself and its predecessors in *541 "title, under qualified grants and subject to express covenants. It holds thereunder, and its rights and title are to be measured thereby. … Having entered under such qualified right, it is estopped from now. .asserting any other claim. (Duryee v. Mayor, 96 N. Y. 477 ; St. Vincent Orphan Asylum v. City of Troy, supra.)

Sutherland v. City of New York

266 A.D.2d 373 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 15, 1999

Ciabattari was clearly acting as an agent of the employer, not the owner. … As such, Pile would clearly not be entitled to summary judgment. *384 As the proponent of a motion for summary judgment, the defendant Pile bore the burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see

89 Christopher Inc. v. Joy

44 A.D.2d 417 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 14, 1974

“No new maximum rent shall be established pursuant to paragraph (.3) [providing for the maximum base rents effective January 1, 1972] or (4) [requiring the establishment of maximum base rents effective January 1, 1974 and … The premises involved herein is a 20-unit, walk-up structure which had qualified for a January 1, 1972 MBR of $21,467, predicated, inter alia, on an O&M of $11,269.40.

Shook v. Lavine

49 A.D.2d 238 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 31, 1975

Leeway has been given to the States insofar as determining the standard of "need” and the amount of funds to devote to the program (King v Smith, supra, pp 318-319 ) but once "need” has been established the only additional … The statute clearly vests in the court the discretion to make a determination of the feasibility and desirability of permitting the action to proceed as a class action.

Long Sault Development Co. v. Kennedy

158 A.D. 398 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 10, 1913

Judge Bapallo’s reasoning and the long-continued custom of the State in granting bridge and ferry and dam privileges seem clearly opposed to respondent’s arguments on this point. Second. … A further principle seems -well established, and this is, that “the use will be scrutinized less closely when the property is vested in the State or some public agency, than when it is vested in a private corporation.”

Van Dyke v. New York State Department of Social Services

185 A.D.2d 509 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 16, 1992

The burden of rebutting the presumption that a transfer was made for the purpose of qualifying for medical assistance is on the applicant and is satisfied only with "evidence * * * establishing] that the transfer was exclusively … that the transfers of funds for the mobile home purchase were exclusively for some purpose other than qualifying for medical assistance.

Claim of Gryziec v. Zweibel

74 A.D.2d 9 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 8, 1980

I We reject the contention that an estate may qualify as a claimant eligible for an award from the Crime Victims Compensation Board under article 22 of the Executive Law. … affidavit contained the following statement: "I have been an investigator with the State of New York since 1958, and it has been my firm practice for many years when speaking to attorneys for claimants on such matters to clearly

Tannenbaum v. State Tax Commission

46 A.D.2d 400 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 9, 1975

The record establishes ¡that during the years under review he was devoted in his work,to public service in a traditionally professional sense. … That petitioner clearly was qualified and legally authorized to practice a profession is well demonstrated by the record.

Schoonmaker v. Heckscher

171 A.D. 148 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 31, 1916

It is evident that the intention of the parties was to establish an area within which houses of a certain character alone could be constructed, and from which all obnoxious trades should be excluded. … I am of the opinion that the entire sentence should be construed as a whole and the words “ and also on said Madison Avenue ” be regarded as qualified by the preceding words, “lying between Madison Avenue on the westerly

Sease v. Central Greyhound Lines, Inc.

281 A.D. 192 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 30, 1952

In the present case none of these things were done, and- therefore no jurisdiction was obtained, and as the matter is jurisdictional, no court has the power to qualify, suspend or waive the statutory provisions for the service … of a summons without clearly attempting to invade the legislative field.

In re Josephine O.

245 A.D.2d 900 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 24, 1997

Additionally, DSS took steps to assist respondent in qualifying for Medicaid coverage to provide a means of paying for a substance abuse program. … DSS established goals for respondent and directed her to the programs necessary to meet these goals.

People ex rel. Floersheimer v. Purdy

174 A.D. 694 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 1, 1916

Div. 702 , decided herewith) we have expressed the opinion that while this section will authorize an application by a lay agent if properly authorized and qualified, it cannot be construed as authorizing an application to … That the facts invested the court with power to dismiss he clearly demonstrated and we find in the present cases no reason why we should refrain from exercising that power.

Strong v. State

38 A.D.2d 241 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 24, 1972

State of New York, 22 N Y 2d 292, 295), but the value of prior built fixtures, unless the appropriation is qualified when made, must be considered in determining the total value of the property appropriated (Marraro v. … moved, without notice to the State, the claimant will not be able to receive compensation for these structures as fixtures unless the State forced the premature removal of the property * * * or the property can be *245 clearly

County of Chautauqua v. Shah

126 A.D.3d 1317 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 20, 2015

Consequently, we concluded in Niagara III ( 122 AD3d at 1242 ) that “[s]ection 61 clearly states that no further claims for reimbursement of overburden expenditures will be paid, notwithstanding Social Services Law § 368- … other words, the issue of “ ‘capacity concerns [petitioners’] power to appear and bring [their] grievance before the court’ ” (Matter of Graziano v County of Albany, 3 NY3d 475, 478-479 [2004]), but petitioners must then establish