Case law

Nance v. Town of Oyster Bay

23 A.D.2d 9 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 29, 1965

Moreover, in all the patents (e.g., the Nicolls patent) the additional qualifying words: “within the Limitts and bounds aforementioned described,” might have reference -only to waterways that are inside the boundary theretofore … conveyance upon the sea or the river;” that such a conveyance by the king “ will carry title only to high-water mark ’ ’ and that, to overcome such limitation “ [o]ther words must be employed in the conveyance which would clearly

Florio v. Cross

194 A.D.2d 136 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 23, 1993

To the contrary, the foregoing establishes that Schoonmaker is a nonaccommodation comaker. … While rights of contribution or indemnification are not rights of recourse on the instrument, both certainly qualify as rights of recourse dehors the instrument and thus clearly seem to be encompassed within the statute (

People v. Maney

45 A.D.2d 765 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 24, 1974

In these circumstances, the Justice’s refusal to sentence defendant to probation clearly shows he rejected the defense version of the conversation. We do not deem this error. … For he waived immunity and inculpated himself to a degree that would now render exculpation impossible.

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

Citibank, N.A. v. Yanling Wu

199 A.D.3d 48 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 1, 2021

Although the plaintiff here obtained the note after the defendants were allegedly in default, the plaintiff also does not qualify as a "debt collection agency" under this expanded definition. … Debt buyers, who accounted for 90% of such consumer credit collection actions filed in Civil Court, had taken the position that they were "immune to licensing requirements" because they "outsource[d] the actual collection

Wolf Street Supermarkets, Inc. v. McPartland

108 A.D.2d 25 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 5, 1985

However, we need not decide whether the defendants here have constitutional immunity from liability for tortious interference with business relations arising out of peaceful picketing, since plaintiff claims damages for recognitional … It is clear that plaintiff was libeled and suffered harm and it should be granted the opportunity to establish its damage.

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

Valentini v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

106 A.D. 487 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 1, 1905

This was clearly , error. It called -for the conclusion of the witness upon a vital point in the case. The objection raised the precise. question. … The witness was not qualified to speak as to the need of the insured of medical attendance; and, so far as she testified to facts, there is nothing to show that he was in need of such attendance at the time when she first

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

Harco Constr., LLC v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.

2025 NY Slip Op 03311 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 4, 2025

arguing, among other things, that FMIC's disclaimer was invalid as to Harco, that the "work height" exclusion relied on by FMIC in its disclaimer was inapplicable under the facts or was otherwise ambiguous, and that 301-303 qualified … The doctrine of collateral estoppel "precludes a party from relitigating in a subsequent action or proceeding an issue clearly raised in a prior action or proceeding and decided against that party or those in privity, whether

Collins v. Steuart

2 A.D. 271 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 15, 1896

Steuart ivas appointed and qualified because of the inconvenience which would result if she, as executrix, attempted to pursue her claim against the estate. … It is clearly within the power of the courts upon the petition of a creditor to appoint an ancillary administrator who shall take possession of these assets and hold them subject to the jurisdiction of this court until the

Cohn v. National Broadcasting Co.

67 A.D.2d 140 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 5, 1979

Therefore, the publication was legally protected by a qualified privilege " 'unless [plaintiff] proves that the publication was made with actual malice, that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard … Moreover, even assuming that there was defamation, which there was not, the law firm, as a professional corporation, must establish that the libel directly affected its credit and resulted in pecuniary injury or loss.

People v. Riccio

91 A.D.2d 693 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 2, 1982

Testimony by D’Emic, Paparían and Guerrara, those successively placed on the payroll, clearly established the scheme employed by defendant. … Defendant’s repetition of the “wrong guy” remark at the police station was clearly unsolicited. Under these circumstances, the motion to suppress was properly denied.

Adams v. Pilarte

152 A.D.3d 97 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 15, 2017

The triage notes clearly noted that plaintiff was using the NuvaRing device. An EKG was performed and found to be normal with a prolonged QT interval. … She opined that plaintiffs family history of heart disease did not contraindicate prescribing NuvaRing, and that the NuvaRing fact sheet clearly discussed the warning signs and serious health problems associated with the

Navarro v. Fiorita

271 A.D.2d 62 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 14, 1946

On trial, if plaintiff fails to establish the truth of these allegations, defendant may be completely vindicated and exonerated. … But in converting corporate property to his own use, the officer clearly is not acting, as. such for the corporation but in his own interest against the corporation. Such action is a wrong to the corporation.

People v. Dobbs Ferry Medical Pavillion, Inc.

40 A.D.2d 324 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 22, 1973

The record in this case establishes that the practice of the appellants doctors comes squarely within that definition. … Clearly, then, the State has power to protect the people from any unsafe abortion facility, even if it is not licensed as a ‘ ‘ hospital ’ ’.

Smith v. Balcom

24 A.D. 437 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 15, 1897

The facts upon which this claim is founded are apparently free from controversy, and, as established by the judgment appealed from, they are in substance these, viz.: In June, 1886, the plaintiff became the owner of a house … After having duly qualified the executors were requested by the plaintiff to convey to him the premises in question, but this they declined to do, and the present action was thereupon brought.

CPC International Inc. v. McKesson Corp.

120 A.D.2d 221 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 13, 1986

In *226 addition, it maintains offices and facilities in New York State, where it is qualified to do business, and is a major food conglomerate. … clearly intended to provide this kind of remedy.

Dillon v. Coughlin

153 A.D.2d 50 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 28, 1989

This entitles the inmate to apply for parole prior to the minimum parole eligibility date established under his sentence (Correction Law § 805). … Other provisions of the statute clearly imply that eligibility to participate in the program is to be determined on the basis of an inmate’s meeting the criteria of eligibility upon his application and acceptance into the

Board of Education of the City School District v. Mills

25 A.D.3d 952 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 19, 2006

“To sustain a finding of either civil or criminal contempt based upon 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 … current Chancellor might elect to pursue against respondent once he is reinstated and in no way qualifies or modifies respondent’s right to reinstatement and back pay.