Case law

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

Cover v. Cover

2019 NY Slip Op 4910 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 19, 2019

To prevail on a motion to hold a party in civil contempt, the movant must establish by clear and convincing evidence (1) that a lawful order or judgment of the court was [*2]in effect, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate … Here, the defendant failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the plaintiff disobeyed a clearly expressed, unequivocal mandate of the judgment of divorce.

People v. Williams

264 A.D.2d 325 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 12, 1999

. *326 The evidence at trial established that at about 3:00 a.m. on April 10, 1993, defendant, after a confrontation with a total stranger, named Richard Campbell, taunted, struck and pursued Campbell for several minutes … Even defendant himself would not be immune from forceful cross-examination. (People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133, 136 , lv denied 91 NY2d 976 [“prosecutor need not tread lightly in cross-examining (defendant)”]).

Marshall v. de Cordova

26 A.D. 615 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 1, 1898

The will of the said Sarah Drake having been duly admitted to probate, and the plaintiff having qualified as sole executrix, this action was brought some six years afterwards. … Y. 261 ) seems to lay down a different rule, and the cases therein cited clearly establish a different rule.

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

MAY, DONALD M., PEOPLE v

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 9, 2012

It is well established that “[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, 160; see … 1077 KA 11-01007 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

Vietor v. National City Bank

200 A.D. 557 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 7, 1922

The issue thus clearly defined for the consideration of the jury had been sharply contested upon the trial. … That there is no finding or evidence before me of any custom or general usage which modifies the long and clearly established legal rights of a buyer under a c. i. f. contract.

Hill v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority

157 A.D.2d 93 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 7, 1990

The question to be resolved on appeal is whether a "covered person” entitled to immunity from direct suit pursuant to New York’s "No-Fault” Insurance Law (Insurance Law § 5101 et seq.), may nevertheless be subject to a claim … nature; (2) the plaintiff conceded in her deposition that she had missed only two weeks of work due to her alleged injuries; and (3) the medical report submitted by the plaintiff failed to set forth the existence of injuries qualifying

Cramer v. Englert

262 A.D.2d 827 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 17, 1999

It was subsequently established in the ensuing bankruptcy proceeding that in fact, although Spada and Lazarow had filed a UCC-1 financing statement, no formal security agreement had ever been executed as part of the closing … Although Merrill Lynch was granted a security interest in this equipment at the time it financed the installation of the new automatic scorers, this equipment cannot qualify for purchase-money priority as it was not acquired

245 Realty Associates v. Sussis

243 A.D.2d 29 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 28, 1998

Respondent’s right, if any, to succeed to the deceased tenant’s interests in the subject apartment clearly derives from the applicable provisions of the Rent Stabilization Code and not from the terms of the lease. … Moreover, mutuality of obligation for attorneys’ fees is not established merely by the fact that the estate and the successful successor are joined in the same proceeding.

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

Sullivan v. Hamilton

13 A.D. 140 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 15, 1897

We think-this must be construed as an allegation of fact, unless it is to be ruled, as a matter of law, that it is impossible to qualify or limit the term “ taxes.” … It is possible that other parts of the deed may clearly prove that local assessments were, not considered by the parties as taxes.

Vohmann v. Michel

109 A.D. 659 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 15, 1905

Carl Coenen and the plaintiffs Carl Yohmann and Hermann Mecke were appointed executors of said will and trustees of the. trusts therein created, and . duly qualified both as executors and trustees. … 'The decision of the learned court at Special Term, appears to have been rested principally upon the claim of estoppel, but it is very difficult to find, in-this record all the elements, essential to establish an estoppel

New York Charter Schools Ass'n v. DiNapoli

60 A.D.3d 119 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 15, 2009

Charter schools, although clearly accorded considerable latitude not available to public school districts in order to advance their ability to achieve the unique role for which they were established (see e.g. … Significantly, charter schools must be nonsectarian, they cannot charge tuition, and “[a]ny child who is qualified . . . for admission to a public school is qualified for admission to a charter school” (Education Law § 2854

Traub v. Basketball City N.Y. LLC

2025 NY Slip Op 00931 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 18, 2025

The construction of the temporary stage in this case qualifies as protected activity within the ambit of Labor Law § 240(1) ( see Seemueller v County of Erie, 202 AD2d 1052, 1052 [4th Dept 1994][dismantling of temporary stage … BBC failed to establish its entitlement to summary judgment on its common-law indemnification claim as against NGPI, because it failed to establish its freedom from negligence as to the lighting conditions ( see Vitucci v

People v. Gantt

48 A.D.3d 59 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 27, 2007

In denying the motion to preclude, the court determined that the statements, made “within minutes of the shooting, clearly qualiffy as] excited utterances under New York law,” that none of them was testimonial within the … It is well established that even responses to questions may qualify as excited utterances (People v Edwards, 47 NY2d 493 [1979]).

Lightbourn v. Walsh

97 A.D. 187 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 15, 1904

But aside from the qualified membership in the party which may be assumed to attach to the! … The record, we think, very clearly s’hows that they had no reason to suppose that the committee so employed the plaintiff upon their individual credit. On the con-, trary, it fairly appears that they expected!

Owens v. Chamorro

114 A.D.3d 1037 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 20, 2014

The determination of whether to grant a request for an adjournment is entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court, and it will not be disturbed unless that discretion is clearly abused (see Matter of Steven B., 6 … She expressed qualified willingness for him to visit the children at her residence, but also stated that she was “not sure” if this was advisable because of her concern that forced contact with a person who the children did

Fell v. McCready

236 A.D. 390 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 11, 1932

Such a restriction could be easily and clearly expressed. We think the contrary is patent throughout the paragraph. … There is difficulty, too, under the Illinois authorities to which we are cited in recognizing a qualified or conditional life estate.

10 West 66th Street Corp. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

184 A.D.2d 143 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 24, 1992

The statute expressly provides that the Attorney-General may refuse to approve the plan if the statement "does not clearly set forth the specific property or properties to be purchased, leased, mortgaged, or otherwise to … Finally, it has not been established that the maid’s room, lacking any kitchen facilities, qualifies as a "dwelling unit” within the meaning of this provision.