Case law

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.

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

Raymond AA. v. Doe

217 A.D.2d 757 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 13, 1995

Clearly exceeding the income he received, petitioner admitted that he borrowed the money from respondent or his mother to pay for his drug and alcohol consumption. … (supra), the Court of Appeals clearly opined that the fundamental right of an unwed father to a continued parental relationship is not unlimited and may be established by the father’s "manifestation of parental responsibility

Graves v. City of Olean

64 A.D. 598 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 15, 1901

And again (p. 140), the judge says : The facts did not bring the case within the principle of the non-liability cases., And he says: “ The immunity of a municipal corporation from lianility for damages, occasioned to those … established by the cases, etc.” ' And the cases, or many of them, including the case of Mills v.

Petrobras Comercio Internacional v. Intershoe, Inc.

77 A.D.2d 546 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 31, 1980

It is qualified to do business in this State and has its principal office here. Calcado Schirley S. A., Industria de Comercio (Schirley) is a Brazilian shoe manufacturer. … Whether or not the relationship between Schirley and Interbras is such that Interbras is the collection agent on this account for Schirley is not so clearly demonstrated that it may be disposed of summarily.

Mount v. Mount

68 A.D. 144 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 15, 1902

The evidence introduced tended to establish the fact that Henry B. Mount, as executor of Bichard E. … This is clearly pointed out by Judge Martin, who delivered the opinion in the case cited.

Noto v. Holle

160 A.D.2d 918 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 23, 1990

The record clearly establishes that Noto served an order to show cause seeking confirmation of the attachment order within the time period proscribed by statute (see, CPLR 6211 [b]). … However, since Noto has sufficiently established the probability of success on his breach of contract causes of action against Catimex, a foreign corporation not qualified to do business in New *921 York State (see, CPLR

Lederman v. McLean Trucking Co.

41 A.D.2d 5 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 26, 1973

Service of such summons shall be made by mailing a copy thereof to the secretary of state at his office in the city of Albany, or by personally delivering a copy thereof to one of his regularly established offices, with a … The return receipt or other official proof of delivery shall constitute presumptive evidence that the summons mailed was received by the defendant or a person qualified to receive his certified mail or registered mail; and

In re Katherine B.

189 A.D.2d 443 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 19, 1993

Clearly, this is not in her emotional best interests. "8. … This article is designed to establish procedure to help protect children from injury or mistreatment and to help safeguard their physical, mental, and emotional well-being.

BML Props. Ltd. v. China Constr. Am., Inc.

2024 NY Slip Op 02252 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 25, 2024

Even if the unjust enrichment claim is not duplicative, it should also have been dismissed because plaintiff did not establish that it made the subject payments or otherwise had a legal entitlement to the funds used to make … Section 11.10 is not unenforceable because "the misconduct for which it would grant immunity smacks of intentional wrongdoing" as "a party can intentionally breach a contract to advance a 'legitimate economic self-interest

In re Bensel

148 A.D. 553 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 28, 1911

Hasbrouck, on the ground that any of the witnesses were not shown to be qualified to testify to the value of real estate at West Hurley, and on the further ground that all of the witnesses have admitted that in making up … As to the other question raised upon the- aZowance of witness fees and counsel fee to the claimants, we think the appellants have failed to establish their claim.

In re the Construction of the Will of Brew

7 A.D.2d 364 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 17, 1959

Although named executrix in the testator’s will, she did not qualify or take any steps to probate the will or to administer his estate prior to her death on April 21, 1956. … The said provisions of the will, and the surrounding circumstances, particularly with reference to the precarious state of health and life expectancy of the testator’s wife, clearly establish the dominant purpose of the testator

Sankel v. Spector

33 A.D.3d 167 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 3, 2006

Bank of City of NY., 61 NY 497 [1875] [10-year period of dormancy by designated trustee established his refusal to accept the position]; Matter of Robinson, 37 NY 261, 263 [1867] [“(h)is omission to qualify as trustee or … Clearly, the appointment of Jacobs does nothing to further Eleanor’s interest, and would be in direct contravention of the wishes of Linda’s cobeneficiary.

People v. Perez

85 A.D.3d 1538 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 10, 2011

Although the correction officer admitted at the hearing that defendant was restrained to a greater degree than other inmates, that statement does not establish that defendant was restrained *1540 in a manner over and above … Contrary to defendant’s contention, the felony conviction for which he was incarcerated at the time of the incident at issue qualified as the requisite predicate felony conviction for second felony offender status (cf.

Rubinstein v. 160 West End Owners Corp.

145 A.D.2d 390 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 29, 1988

Moreover, there is no assertion that the estate wishes to procure the shares for the apartment in order to provide a home for anyone, and, indeed, petitioner clearly regards the purported right to purchase simply as an asset … This holding is not only unequivocal but was reaffirmed by the court when it stated that "the critical component to establishing an entitlement to exercising the insider rights of a 'tenant in occupancy’ is a landlord-tenant

Xia-Ping Wang v. Diamond Hill Realty, LLC

116 A.D.3d 767 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 9, 2014

Materials that clearly qualify as “documentary evidence” include “documents reflecting out-of-court transactions such as mortgages, deeds, contracts, and any other papers, the contents of which are ‘essentially undeniable … Contrary to New York Food’s contention, affidavits do not qualify as “documentary evidence” for purposes of a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) (see Flushing Sav.

Siegel v. Kentucky Fried Chicken of Long Island, Inc.

108 A.D.2d 218 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 6, 1985

. *221 Accordingly, where, as here, the lease provides that certain of the rights and immunities arising thereunder may be exercised and enjoyed by either the “Landlord or Landlord’s agents”, and where it elsewhere designates … 797 ) that the signature of an attorney to a protest filed on behalf of a client-landowner pursuant to former Village Law § 179 (1) was *222 the legal equivalent of the statutorily required owner’s signature, that case clearly

Aetna Casualty. v. County of Nassau

221 A.D.2d 107 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 17, 1996

a surety is qualified to do business in the *110 State solely with the Superintendent. … This exception to the general antitrust provisions of section 2504 is clearly not at issue in the instant case.

People v. Pierson

279 A.D. 509 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 11, 1952

The People urge that the complaint, though inexpertly drawn by a clerk in the Magistrates’ Court, clearly set forth facts which ££ spell out the crime of policy and not bookmaking.” … on policy, or owning or being the agent or janitor of any establishment where lottery policies are sold.’