Case law

People v. Graham

211 A.D.2d 55 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 2, 1995

The standard for probable cause justifying a search or seizure is not the same as that required to establish guilt. … Clearly, if Officer Smith had observed vials, glassine envelopes, tinfoil packets or any other type of package commonly associated with a drug transaction, probable cause would have existed.

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.

Zingrebe v. Union Railway Co.

67 N.Y.S. 554 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 14, 1900

It was clearly necessary to the plaintiff’s cause of action that he should show the nature and extent of the in juries "sustained by his wife, and evidence1 which would be material in establishing these facts would be com … Johnson, as to the conduct of plaintiff’s wife while undergoing an examination, for the purpose of qualifying the physician to testify in this action, was improperly admitted. Dr.

DeLuca v. Atlantic Mutual Insurance

49 A.D.2d 153 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 20, 1975

was the damage suffered by the plaintiff’s garage, that fact cannot serve to establish that the damage was not caused by accident so as to be outside the coverage of the policies which the defendant issued to its insured … , without regard to the claimed police assault and battery, such illness would qualify as a bodily injury flowing from the insured’s negligence, for the right to an insurance company defense arises from the possibility of

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

People v. May

100 A.D.3d 1411 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 9, 2012

It is well established that <6[a] person who is stopped or detained illegally is not immunized from prosecution for crimes committed during his [or her] detention period” (United States v Garcia-Jordan, 860 F2d 159, *1412 … “Dismissal of an indictment in the interest of justice must be exercised sparingly . . . , that is, only in those rare cases where there is a compelling factor which clearly demonstrates that prosecution of the indictment

Price v. New York State & Local Employees' Retirement System

107 A.D.3d 1212 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 13, 2013

did he qualify for such reinstatement. … Under settled principles, “[t]he doctrine of estoppel will not provide eligibility where by statute a person clearly does not qualify” (Matter of Burns v Regan, 87 AD2d 944, 946 [1982], appeal dismissed 57 NY2d 954 [1982]

Shpritzer v. Lang

17 A.D.2d 285 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 27, 1962

It is recognized that there are differences between the qualifying physical examination of patrolmen and policewomen, and also between the medical standards and regulations for the positions. … If that is so, and the contrary is not established by the record before us, to deny equality of privilege and opportunity would result in a denial of equal protection of the laws, and legislation designed to effect such a

Kenneth D. Laub & Co. v. 101 Park Avenue Associates

101 A.D.2d 744 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 8, 1984

As was observed in Greene v Heilman (supra, at p 206): “That is not to say that, in order to qualify for a commission, the broker in all instances must have been the dominant force in the conduct of the ensuing negotiations … Clearly, the brokerage agreement between plaintiff and defendant did not recognize plaintiff as having any exclusive right or any express right to recover a commission and, from the language used, suggests that the parties

In re Julia BB.

42 A.D.3d 208 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 31, 2007

This episode, therefore, plainly qualifies as a “serious physical injury.” … presentation because “[s]he did not have blue sclera 12 [and] [t]he bone fractures were in the wrong spots.” 13 Again, however, it is apparent from the record that physical abuse was a default diagnosis for Sanchez—a point clearly

People v. Flaherty

50 N.Y.S. 574 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 26, 1898

This juror was clearly qualified. He had never read the evidence in the case, but had read a brief account of it in a Buffalo paper, which did not give the history of the case or the testimony. … Such it clearly was, because the date of the birth established the fact that a felony had been committed; that some one had had sexual intercourse with the girl before she became 16 years of age, though it did not prove that

New York University Medical Center v. Axelrod

188 A.D.2d 207 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 25, 1993

To the contrary, the statute expressly provides that in calculating the State-wide case mix increase, respondent is to exclude only those case mix changes that are due to "acquired immune deficiency syndrome, epidemics or … Clearly, a general hospital may raise any relevant issue in support of its appeal, such as its past trends in case mix change, changes in hospital service delivery and referral patterns, provision of new services or deletion

Jiggetts v. Dowling

21 A.D.3d 178 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 21, 2005

In order to assert the rights obtained by plaintiffs, the proposed intervenors have to establish that: (1) a new state public assistance program, SNA, is a “successor” to AFDC/ADC (although it admittedly does not qualify … The fact that this action has been litigated to final judgment on behalf of a clearly defined class of AFDC recipients, and the fact that the proposed intervenors are not only outside of that class but also raise unlitigated

Rintelen v. Schaefer

158 A.D. 477 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 3, 1913

There is a further presumption, namely, that the condition of sound mind and memory of the testatrix, established in 1905, continued until the contrary was clearly proven. … The testamentary disposition of her property by testatrix does not tend to establish either incompetency or undue influence.

Airborne Freight Corp. v. Michael

94 A.D.2d 669 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 19, 1983

At the hearing, it was established that Airborne was an air freight forwarder authorized and regulated by the Civil Aeronautics Board. … Clearly, a corporation which does not own or operate airplanes cannot have scheduled landings and take-offs of aircraft. Moreover, the Court of Appeals in Emery Air Frgt.

In re the Arbitration between Ulster County Sheriff's Employees Ass'n, CWA Local 1105 & Ulster County Sheriff's Department

100 A.D.3d 1327 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 29, 2012

[A] court may vacate an arbitration award only if it violates a strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator’s power” (Matter of Albany Police Supervisor’s … immune from oversight or review.

People v. Flaherty

27 A.D. 535 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 1, 1898

This juror was clearly qualified. He had never read the evidence in the case, but had read a brief account of it in a Buffalo paper, which did not give the history of the case or the testimony. … Such it clearly was, because the date of the birth established the fact that a felony had been committed, that some one.had had sexual intercourse with the girl before she became sixteen years of age, though it did not prove

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

People v. Goldfaden

52 A.D.2d 790 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 13, 1976

Thomas Noguchi, Chief Medical Examiner of Los Angeles, California, and qualified him as an expert in the sex identification of blood. … Thus, we should be most careful in admitting into evidence the results of such tests unless their reasonable accuracy and general scientific acceptance are clearly recognized.”

Price v. New York State & Local Employees' Retirement System

107 A.D.3d 1212 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 13, 2013

did he qualify for such reinstatement. … Under settled principles, “[t]he doctrine of estoppel will not provide eligibility where by statute a person clearly does not qualify” (Matter of Burns v Regan, 87 AD2d 944, 946 [1982], appeal dismissed 57 NY2d 954 [1982]