Case law

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.

People v. Bittner

97 A.D.2d 33 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 14, 1983

Likewise, at bar, we are presented with a well-qualified and experienced police officer operating in a location notorious for narcotics trafficking. … Although the officers positively observed hand-to-hand contact, they were unable to clearly see, from their observation point, the object which was passed.

City of New York v. Lawton

128 A.D.2d 202 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 14, 1987

Respondents also urge that since the State has a substantial financial interest here it cannot be said to have waived immunity to suit (see, Ferro v Lavine, 79 Misc 2d 431 , affd 46 AD2d 313 ). … Clearly, an issue of fact exists which must be determined before any declaration of the applicability of the 1979 amendment may be made.

Bjelicic v. Lynned Realty Corp.

152 A.D.2d 151 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 14, 1989

Appellants established a prima facie case of respondents’ negligence by showing that Warshow violated a local law which carries a penal sanction. … The licensee who "lends” his license to another holds him out to those seeking to employ a rigger, and those public officials charged with enforcing this law, as qualified.

Henn v. Long Island Railroad

51 A.D. 292 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 15, 1900

Ho case is cited holding that a tally-ho coach is so unusual as to furnish immunity to- a railroad company by whom it may be negligently destroyed-, nor was there any view of the evidence which the jury could take which would … On the contrary, the preponderance of evidence seems clearly with the plaintiff. She has fully established the absence of contributory negligence.

Brown v. Albany Citizens Council on Alcoholism, Inc.

199 A.D.2d 904 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 30, 1993

at January 17, 1990 and January 26, 1990 council meetings (fourth, fifth and sixth causes of action) and a claim that the council, a not-for-profit corporation, discharged plaintiff in contravention of lawful procedure established … This affidavit and the allegations of the complaint provide an adequate evidentiary basis for plaintiff’s claim of malice and overcome any qualified privilege that Hall may enjoy (cf., Bardey v Brooke-Hitching, 191 AD2d 243

Jones v. Kelly

9 A.D.2d 395 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 23, 1959

Is proof thereof established by a plea of guilty or finding of guilt following trial or is it necessary to prove that thereafter judgment was entered thereon by imposition of sentence or other affirmative action ? … There the defendant had been indicted for voting at an election when not qualified therefor. The statute prohibited such voting by one convicted of a felony.

People ex rel. Morse v. Nussbaum

55 A.D. 245 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 15, 1900

An order for the examination of a *248 witness before trial, but after the action has been brought, is clearly an order in the action (Roch. Lamp Co. v. Brigham, 1 App. … The statute requiring the witness to testify assumes to grant immunity for all offenses on account of any transaction concerning which he may testify.

Pinkney v. City of New York

50 A.D.2d 928 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 31, 1975

Evidence established to the jury’s satisfaction that the pursuer did not flash signal lights or sound a siren. The plaintiff was struck by the fleeing car. … In the present case the jury could clearly find that the police officers did not sound their siren or operate their flashing lights during the pursuit.”

Davis v. A. H. Robins Co.

99 A.D.2d 342 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 6, 1984

Wé hold that Weinreich (supra) is clearly distinguishable as the only evidence offered was an attorney’s affirmation. Here, the hospital records were made a part of the motion papers. … Entries which are made in the hospital chart, and are relative to the treatment or diagnosis of the patient, qualify for admission under the statutory business rule (Williams v Alexander, 309 NY 283 ).

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.

DeLong v. County of Erie

89 A.D.2d 376 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 9, 1982

As noted in Riss and in Dutton v City of Olean ( 60 AD2d 335 ), when a relationship is created between the police and an individual which gives rise to a special duty, the municipality loses its governmental immunity and … Here a qualified economist testified on the basis of statistical data.

Palmer v. Hickory Grove Cemetery

84 A.D. 600 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 1, 1903

.: The plaintiffs bring this action to restrain the defendant, Hickory Grove Cemetery, from acquiring certain lands in the town of Mamaroneclc, Westchester county, for cemetery purposes, and from establishing a cemetery thereon … And “ in recent times courts-are less disposed than formerly to depart from or qualify the plain, words of a statute in favor of what is termed an equitable construction, in order to take particular cases out of. its operation

People v. Utica Daw's Drug Co.

16 A.D.2d 12 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 22, 1962

Clearly, a contention of this kind is addressed to the court and should be passed upon by the court and not left to the jury. … As has been pointed out, the burden resting upon the defendant is a heavy one and, even if the defendant succeeds in sustaining it, he will not *21 be immune from a new prosecution, when and if the public authorities undertake

Vincent v. Thompson

50 A.D.2d 211 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 22, 1975

In our opinion that ruling was clearly error and deprived Parke, Davis of an opportunity to *221 establish that the doctrine of collateral estoppel should not have been applied. … Clearly, there may be instances in which collateral estoppel may properly be invoked in such cases.

American Management Associations v. Assessor of Madison

63 A.D.2d 1102 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 29, 1978

To the contrary, the record clearly establishes that the threshold question of "organized or conducted exclusively for educational purposes” is not established by the record, and the petition should be dismissed in its entirety … Y. v Lewisohn ( 34 NY2d 143 ), the court stated (pp 153-154): "We begin with the proposition that to qualify for exemption under section 421, it is necessary, first, that the corporation or association seeking exemption be

Clemente v. Impastato

274 A.D.2d 771 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 20, 2000

Plaintiff has failed to establish that any of the three causes of action alleged in his complaint fall within the “libel per se” category and said complaint was properly dismissed. … Accordingly, we need not reach the issues of qualified privilege and malice discussed below. Plaintiff next claims that Supreme Court erroneously directed a new trial solely on defendant’s counterclaim.

People v. Harris

127 N.Y.S.3d 655 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 6, 2020

However, the jury clearly resolved the credibility issues against defendant and in favor of the People. … To qualify as a serious disfigurement, the scars must be "objectively 'distressing or objectionable'" to the reasonable observer ( People v Stewart , 18 NY3d 831, 832 [2011], quoting People v McKinnon , 15 NY3d 311, 315 [

Levy v. Stanion

59 N.Y.S. 306 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 18, 1899

Nealis, was appointed receiver of the property and effects of the firm during the pendency of the action; and, having qualified, he took possession of the assets, which consisted of a liquor saloon located at 831 Eighth avenue … They were clearly guilty of contempt of court, and should have been punished accordingly.

Taylor v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad

63 A.D. 586 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 1, 1901

In this he is clearly mistaken. … , and it is only because the declarations do qualify the act which is done at the same time they are made that they become material.