Case law

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.

Madeline D'Anthony Enterprises, Inc. v. Sokolowsky

101 A.D.3d 606 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 27, 2012

Effective June 21, 2010, the Loft Law was amended to add *607 Multiple Dwelling Law § 281 (5) (L 2010, ch 147, § 1), which created a new qualifying window period under which residential units may qualify for coverage as IMDs … Matter of Moran, OATH Index No. 2016/00 at 40-41 [Feb. 7, 2002] [“Clearly, a unit may be covered for legalization purposes, yet be deregulated for rent purposes . . .

O'Hearn v. O'Hearn

55 A.D.2d 766 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 20, 1976

Assuming that in general a statement in a verified bill of particulars may be read on summation for the purpose of impeachment, the present statement did not qualify. … The report attached to the bill of particulars was *768 clearly not one made by the plaintiff and it was not furnished or made for the purpose of establishing the cause of action or any necessary element thereof insofar as

People v. Hughes

287 A.D.2d 872 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 25, 2001

Under the circumstances, it cannot be clearly stated that Sullivan lacked the time to reflect on the event. … We find, however, that the 911 tape qualified for admission under the prior consistent statement exception to the hearsay rule.

Delaney v. Kelly

103 A.D. 409 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 1, 1905

member the invalidity of the certificate is established, provided he dies before he has been reinstated. … Y. 496 ) is clearly distinguishable from this one.

People v. Long

307 A.D.2d 647 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 31, 2003

Clearly, when counsel asked defendant, “[I]s there anything else you want to tell the jury while you’re on the stand? … The victim’s testimony that the sex was forcible was sufficient to establish the only contested elements of the crime charged — force and lack of consent (see People v Sehn, 295 AD2d 749, 751 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 732

Smith v. De Paz

105 A.D.3d 749 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 3, 2013

The father appeals, by permission, from the order of commitment, and we reverse. *751 “To sustain a finding of either civil or criminal contempt based on an alleged violation of a court order it is necessary to establish … that a lawful order of the court clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate was in effect” (Matter of Department of Envtl.

Beer v. Florsheim

96 A.D.2d 485 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 21, 1983

Defendant also contended that since he is no longer qualified to practice law in the State of New York, he had on several occasions and without success asked plaintiffs’ counsel to make appropriate arrangements to have the … The complaint clearly sets forth a cause of action that defendant did not exercise an ordinary and reasonable degree of care and skill with respect to plaintiffs’ suit against the City of New York.

Matter of Qin Fen Wang v. Chee Kiang Foo

2019 NY Slip Op 3054 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 24, 2019

A family offense petition must set forth factual allegations which, if proven, would establish that the respondent has committed a qualifying family offense ( see Family Ct Act § 821[1][a]; Matter of Brown-Winfield v Bailey … offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court, and its determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great weight on appeal, such that they will not be disturbed unless clearly

Reingold v. Koch

111 A.D.2d 688 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 25, 1985

Respondent clearly evaluated the sufficiency of petitioner’s proof solely with respect to the direct supervision criterion. … We find that substantial evidence supports the finding that petitioner lacked four of the requisite seven years of qualifying experience.

People v. Cratsley

206 A.D.2d 691 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 21, 1994

Initially, defendant contends that because there was no expert testimony establishing the victim’s inability to appreciate the nature of her sexual conduct, the evidence proffered to sustain the conviction was insufficient … Kent was qualified, through her training and experience, to evaluate the abilities and daily functioning of mentally retarded people, and she had observed the victim on a daily basis for two months prior to the incident.

Matter of Cisnero v. Independent Livery Driver Benefit Fund

150 N.Y.S.3d 153 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 24, 2021

statutory language ( see Matter of DaimlerChrysler Corp. v Spitzer , 7 NY3d 653, 660 [2006]; Matter of Minichiello v New York City Dept. of Homeless Servs. , 188 AD3d 1401, 1402 [2020]), we find that claimant's injuries clearly … The record discloses that Brache was the owner and registrant of the vehicle and there is nothing to indicate that either he or claimant qualified as black car operators ( see Executive Law § 160-cc [1]), such as to exclude

Independence Bank v. Valentine

113 A.D.3d 62 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 27, 2013

Entitlement to a judgment of foreclosure is established, as a matter of law, where the plaintiff produces the mortgage, the unpaid note, and evidence of the default (see Emigrant Mtge. … Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law § 1304 (5) (a) (i)-(iv) defines a qualifying “home loan” as one in which, inter alia, the borrower is a natural person; the borrower incurs the debt “primarily for personal, family

In re Tiffany A.

242 A.D.2d 709 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 29, 1997

Nevertheless, it was also established that the mother would require long-term therapy, and that the potential existed for a relapse to her former ways. … Laudable though her achievements may be, the evidence clearly demonstrates that the foster parents are the superior custodians.

Madeline D'Anthony Enterprises, Inc. v. Sokolowsky

101 A.D.3d 606 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 27, 2012

Effective June 21, 2010, the Loft Law was amended to add *607 Multiple Dwelling Law § 281 (5) (L 2010, ch 147, § 1), which created a new qualifying window period under which residential units may qualify for coverage as IMDs … Matter of Moran, OATH Index No. 2016/00 at 40-41 [Feb. 7, 2002] [“Clearly, a unit may be covered for legalization purposes, yet be deregulated for rent purposes . . .

Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Winthrop

207 A.D. 356 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 14, 1923

(dissenting): The deed of trust, powers of attorney and letter referred to in the majority opinion should all be considered together, and so considered, they clearly show a declaration on the .part of Mrs. … The powers of attorney delivered to the trustee in no way qualified the trust, but were merely delivered as a means for obtaining physical possession of the securities.

Dae Assoc., LLC v. AXA Art Ins. Corp.

2018 NY Slip Op 1026 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 13, 2018

"[D]efective title is clearly not a physical loss or damage . . . from any external cause" ( Nevers v Aetna Ins. Co. Inc. , 14 Wash App 906, 907 [1976]). … A longstanding relationship alone is insufficient to establish a special relationship between plaintiff and the broker defendants.

People v. Chait

7 A.D.2d 399 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 17, 1959

His contentions must be established clearly and convincingly, by a preponderance of the credible evidence (People v. Milo, 4 A D 2d 679; People v. Adams, 1 A D 2d 783; People v. Grieshaber, 285 App. … On this record petitioner has failed to sustain his burden of establishing clearly and convincingly, by a preponderance of the credible evidence, that he was not represented by counsel and never advised of his right to counsel

In re Vivian OO.

34 A.D.3d 1111 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 22, 2006

Respondent argues that this evidence was insufficient because the medical professionals who testified were not qualified experts and did not conclusively exclude other causes of the child’s symptoms. We disagree. … Family Court confirmed the professionals’ qualifications and clearly accepted their testimony as to the nature and possible causes of the child’s injury as within their medical expertise.

Viemeister v. White

88 A.D. 44 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 1, 1903

Our attention is called to various provisions of the State Constitution in an effort to establish a conflict between the statute and the fundamental law. … The meaning is, that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property and immunities under the protection of the general rules which govern society.”