Case law

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

Seidman v. Merchants Bank

214 A.D.2d 109 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 7, 1995

Congress enacted ERISA in 1974 for the purposes of protecting the financial interests of the participants and the beneficiaries of qualified employee welfare and pension plans by preserving the soundness and stability of … In addition, the Bank’s contention that the Plan exempts it from any responsibility under the circumstances is contradicted by section 18.04 of the Plan, quoted above, which clearly states that the Trust Fund was established

Cutson v. Cutson

161 A.D.2d 996 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 24, 1990

The record does establish that plaintiff’s employment provides health and disability income coverages, and that her earnings exceed the maximum Social Security withholding allowances qualifying her for disability benefits … Since the court clearly stated that but for these factors, the equitable distribution would have been equal and since no consideration was given to defendant’s age of 54 and the limited time available for him to prepare for

Guy v. Craighead

6 A.D. 463 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 1, 1896

for the covenant, apart from the instrument being under seal, it is alleged by the defend *466 ant’s answer,, as well as shown by testimony introduced; by him, that the Craigheads were actively interested in promoting the establishment … The objection was .clearly untenable. . Foreign executors and administrators may assign ela-ims in their own jurisdictions to residents of this State qualified to sue. .(Petersen v. Chemical Bank, 32 N. Y. 21 .)

Burns International Security Services, Inc. v. International House

125 A.D.2d 239 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 18, 1986

Although plaintiff purported to immunize itself from liability to third parties such as Moskowitz, it also protected itself further by the clause granting it indemnification by International House against any such third-party … Special Term’s reliance on section (d), concerning "[bjodily *242 injury resulting solely from the operation of vehicles owned and/or leased by Burns”, to establish that the term "personal injury” did not include bodily injury

Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v. Client Server Direct, Inc.

156 A.D.3d 1364 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 22, 2017

It is well established that “[t]here is a presumption that the public has [a] right of access to the courts to ensure the actual and perceived fairness of the judicial system, as . . . … With respect to the subject demands, including demand No. 9, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) invoked the bank examination privilege, which “is a qualified rather than [an] absolute privilege [

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

Hotel Claridge Co. v. George Rector, Inc.

164 A.D. 185 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 6, 1914

He had been carefully educated by his father in a manner calculated to qualify him for the business of conducting a restaurant, and had been employed in various capacities *188 in and about the business managed and conducted … In considering such a question as we are now discussing, it is desirable to keep clearly in view the distinction between a case like the present and one in which the owner of a trade name has voluntarily assigned the right

COUNTY OF CHAUTAUQUA v. SHAH, M.D., M.P.H., NIRAV R.

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-a. … Matter of Graziano v County of  -4- 109 CA 14-00923 Albany, 3 NY3d 475, 478-479), but petitioners must then establish

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.

Eddy v. Village of Ellicottville

54 N.Y.S. 800 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 9, 1898

somewhat difficult of solution, but, as was said in the case last cited, “when that line is ascer *802 tamed it is not difficult to determine the rights of the parties, for the rules of law are clear and explicit which establish … the rights, immunities, and liabilities of the (municipality) when in the exercise of each class of powers.”

In re the County of Nassau

43 A.D.2d 45 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 26, 1973

The records in both the Colony and Shelborne cases clearly establish beyond peradventure that the highest and best use for these properties is residential. … Before a property can qualify as a specialty entitled to the summation approach, the following criteria must be established.

Salamone v. Wincaf Properties, Inc.

9 A.D.3d 127 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 29, 2004

At this point, we should note that the rule of indemnification that Wincaf invokes against Bronte was a well-established part of the legal landscape when article 16 was enacted. … In the case at bar, indemnification clearly is ‘available to’ defendant Hospital, and CPLR 1602 (2) thus prevents the [partners] from defeating that right through the application of this article.”

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

People ex rel. Reardon v. Partridge

86 A.D. 310 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 1, 1903

Clearly enough, this authorized a trial of the relator before the first deputy police commissioner. … and around or about the station house all the morning; and although on his direct examination the deputy commissioner testified that the captain’s statement was that he was in the station house, on cross-examination he qualified

Sucher v. Kutscher's County Club

113 A.D.2d 928 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 30, 1985

The burden of establishing the first element is upon the proponent of preclusion, and the burden of establishing the second is upon the opponent (Schwartz v Public Administrator *930 of County of Bronx, supra, at p 73; Kret … However, the design evaluation report hardly qualifies as "new evidence”.

Royal Business School, Inc. v. New York State Department of Education

141 A.D.2d 170 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 20, 1988

) that "[tjeachers * * * in registered private business schools shall have completed professional preparation at least equal to that required of teachers of equivalent curricula or courses in public secondary schools to qualify … Respondents’ interpretation of 8 NYCRR 145-2.2 is clearly rational and will be upheld (see, Matter of Bradford Cent.

Schiferle v. Capital Fence Co., Inc.

155 A.D.3d 122 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 6, 2017

Indeed, “ ‘it is the established law in this State that an award which is viola-tive of public policy will not be permitted to stand’ ” (Matter of Buffalo Police Benevolent Assn. … the law, a court must find ‘both that (1) the arbitrators knew of a governing legal principle yet refused to apply it or ignored it altogether, and (2) the law ignored by the arbitrators was well defined, explicit, and clearly

In re Foley

140 A.D.2d 892 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 26, 1988

Delivery of the Federal Express envelope by Colasurdo to Segarra’s wife clearly complied with the first requirement of CPLR 308 (2) (see, duPont, Glore Forgan & Co. v Chen, 41 NY2d 794 ; Roldan v Thorpe, 117 AD2d 790 , appeal … Mental Hygiene Law § 77.07 (b) provides that the proposed conservatee must be present "unless he is unable to attend by reason of physical or other inability and such inability is established to the satisfaction of the court

People v. Smith

243 A.D.2d 738 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 27, 1997

Clearly, it is essential that a defendant understand the considerable risk in proceeding pro se. … Indeed, the defendant flatly stated that he was “not qualified” to defend *740 himself. Requiring further discussion of a danger already understood would seem to elevate form over substance.