Case law

Stepanov v. Dow Jones & Co.

120 A.D.3d 28 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 29, 2014

The article’s statement is clearly true, as plaintiffs made clear that Maxim Stepanov was, in fact, a former Russian diplomat. … Viewed in this context, it is clear that the only implication intended or endorsed by the author is that the Bristoll wire transfer qualifies as a suspicious transaction.

Union Trust Co. v. Oliver

155 A.D. 646 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 5, 1913

exercised are not expressed on the face of the instrument, but remain in confidence between the owner and the depositary, the case cannot be distinguished in principle from that of an agent who receives secret instructions qualifying … Clearly, what was meant by that statement was that he had agreed to sell it and was holding it until he got his pay.

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

E. Fougera & Co. v. City of New York

178 A.D. 824 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 13, 1917

or place where such medicine or medicinal compound is sold or given away, in chronological order according to the date of the receipt of such prescription at such establishment or place. “ Every such prescription shall remain … This appears to be a serious objection to the validity of the ordinance, for while it is true that the constitutional immunity from self-crimination does not extend to corporations, such as are two of the plaintiffs in these

Matter of City of Albany, N.Y. (Albany Police Benevolent Assn.)

2026 NY Slip Op 03038 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 14, 2026

Significantly, Local Law No. 1 of 1936 remained in force in 1958, thereby qualifying it for the "grandfather" protection afforded by Civil Service Law § 76 (4). … The parties previously resolved police discipline disputes through methods with clearly defined rights, responsibilities and procedures.

Plachte v. Bancroft Inc.

3 A.D.2d 437 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 30, 1957

This is established by what has happened to cases transferred to other courts as a result of the denial of a rule V preference. … This was clearly unconstitutional because of the Supreme Court’s general original jurisdiction.

Robert E. Kurzius, Inc. v. Incorporated Village of Upper Brookville

67 A.D.2d 70 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 26, 1979

had ruled in Matter of Golden v Planning Bd. of Town of Ramapo ( 30 NY2d 359, 376 , app dsmd 409 US 1003 ) that a town may adopt a program providing for phased growth, "we were careful to note that 'community efforts at immunization … "What we will not countenance, then, under any guise, is community efforts at immunization or exclusion.

Curtis v. Hudson Valley Railway Co.

147 A.D. 349 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 15, 1911

The Case is a very close one, both as to whether the negligence of the defendant has been established and whether the intestate was free from contributory negligence. … It clearly was competent to show that the witness was in a position to hear the bell if it sounded.

Mark G. v. Sabol

247 A.D.2d 15 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 23, 1998

action for violations [by State agents] of federal statutes as well as the Constitution”, the Wilder Court (at 508) cites two exceptions to that rule: where “ ‘the statute [does] not create enforceable rights, privileges, or immunities … Section 671 (a) *39 (16) is one of a list of 17 required features for State plans seeking to qualify for Federal funding.

Fiske v. Beaty

206 A.D. 349 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 19, 1923

We think that the facts and the law of the case establish that we have here such an instance. … As an election could not be had without such notice it clearly follows that Beaty was never elected.

Town of Guilderland v. Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc.

159 A.D.2d 829 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 22, 1990

The defendant has the burden of proof in establishing prejudice to him. … This affidavit, however, fails to clearly identify and reconcile such relationships.

Hoesten v. Best

34 A.D.3d 143 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 7, 2006

Qualified Privilege Best also contends that even if plaintiffs claims were not preempted by federal law, they should have been dismissed pursuant to the state law doctrine of qualified privilege. … It is well established that even where a statement is defamatory, a qualified privilege exists where the communication is made to persons who share a common interest in the subject matter (Foster v Churchill, 87 NY2d 744,

Citibank v. New York State Division of Human Rights

227 A.D.2d 322 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 30, 1996

The evidence adduced at the hearing fails to support even a finding that Hanna established a prima facie case of discrimination. … Hanna’s burden of proof then was to show by a preponderance of the evidence that this reason was merely a pretext for discrimination, and, on the evidence cited above, this burden clearly was not met.

A.H.A. General Construction Inc. v. New York City Housing Authority

241 A.D.2d 428 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 31, 1997

While AHA contends otherwise, the record establishes that AHA did not strictly comply with these provisions of the contract. … Clearly, if true, this “smacks of intentional wrongdoing” (Kalisch-Jarcho, Inc. v City of New York, supra, at 385). * In its unsuccessful motion to renew, reviewable pursuant to CPLR 5517 (a) and (b) (see, Firedoor Corp.

Grant v. Cuomo

130 A.D.2d 154 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 9, 1987

As observed in a leading treatise, the principle is well established that "mandamus compels action admitting of no discretion and so clearly required as to be merely ministerial” (Siegel, NY Prac § 577, at 775). … All of these are clearly matters involving the exercise of judgment and discretion, and under established rules courts may not by way of mandamus require a social services worker to take one or another action which that worker

Auerbach v. Bennett

64 A.D.2d 98 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 7, 1978

Clearly, when Auerbach decided not to appeal, he could not be compelled to continue his action against his will. … Nor should the report of the outside directors be immune from scrutiny by an interpretation of the doctrine which compels the acceptance of the findings of the report on their face.

Connolly v. O'Malley

17 A.D.2d 411 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 6, 1962

By article VIII of section 1 of said act, it is provided: “ The commission shall establish a longshoremen’s register in which shall be included all qualified longshoremen eligible, as hereinafter provided, for employment … This was clearly necessary.

Matter of Prometheus Realty Corp. v. New York City Water Bd.

147 A.D.3d 519 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 16, 2017

At bar, however, the rationale for designating class one property owners as qualified for or deserving of a credit, but not other classes of property owners, is lacking. … The Water Board claims that a rational basis derives from the fact that class one property owners clearly include “seniors and low or moderate income homeowners.”

Ruiz v. Lavine

49 A.D.2d 1 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 18, 1975

In order to qualify for medical assistance under the statute it is enough that petitioners Ruiz establish that they are bona fide residents—that they inténd to make New York their place of residence—regardless of their reasons … It does not establish where the Ruizes intended to live under the realities *6 with which they then found themselves confronted.

Matter of King v. Venettozzi

152 A.D.3d 1115 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 27, 2017

The regulations clearly delegate the task of identifying such a substance to specified professionals who are aided in their efforts by specified drug identification tests (see 7 NYCRR 1010.4 [d], [e], [f], [g]). … We do not rule out the possibility that the testimony of a trained officer may be sufficient to identify such a substance, but the record must establish the officer’s qualifications to make such an identification.