Case law

Mavco, Inc. v. Hampden Sales Ass'n

273 A.D. 297 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 15, 1948

It is sometimes said that this rule makes the diligent thief immune while the one who might hesitate and delay must give up his plunder. … In the last analysis, the decisions in these cases have been based on an aversion to granting a monopoly to anyone who was unable to secure a patent or statutory trade-mark unless it clearly appeared that the public would

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.

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.

Servido v. Superintendent of Insurance

77 A.D.2d 70 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 21, 1980

For our purposes it is sufficient that a bailment took place, as clearly it did. … Under both the statute and the mandatory endorsement Servido, as the Referee noted, qualifies as a member of an insured’s household.

Leogrande v. State Liquor Authority

25 A.D.2d 225 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 31, 1966

In New York, immunity from search and seizure was long considered as “ the creature, not of constitution but of statute ”; and, until 1938, there was no immunity except as prescribed by statute. (People v. … As clearly revealed by the long line of decisions, the rejection by the Constitutional Convention of 1938 of proposals to change the New York exclusionary rule and the lack of action by the Legislature in the matter, the

People v. Dwight S.

33 A.D.2d 1032 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 9, 1970

Clearly, the two charges not only connote qualitatively different conduct but are based upon separate and distinct acts, each of which constitutes a violation of law (cf. People v. Martinis, 46 Misc 2d 1066 ). … It may be, as the majority notes, that in this sparse record there is no claim by defendant that his guilty plea was coerced by his inability to obtain a jury trial, but that does not per se establish a knowing, voluntary

Burkhart v. People, Inc.

129 A.D.3d 1475 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 12, 2015

The parties agree that the group home operated by defendant does not qualify as a nursing home. … institutions “serving principally as facilities . . . for the rendering of health-related service” (§ 2800 [emphasis added]), and the provisions of the article relate specifically to hospitals and nursing homes, institutions that clearly

Szerdahelyi v. Harris

110 A.D.2d 550 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 18, 1985

Immunity to the lender upon making restitution”. … Young , decided more than 70 years ago, clearly indicated that General Business Law § 376 (then the controlling section) dealt only with civil and not with criminal sanctions and did not bar a prosecution for criminal usury

Loblaw, Inc. v. New York State Board of Pharmacy

12 A.D.2d 180 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 12, 1961

The plaintiff’s only interest in this controversy is to establish the right to continue to sell these tablets in its retail stores. … The plan should not be destroyed by piecemeal exceptions unless they are clearly warranted. *186 It is our conclusion that these tablets are not ‘‘ proprietary medicines ” and therefore not excepted from the operation of

Beyah v. Goord

309 A.D.2d 1049 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 23, 2003

considered confidential and not subject to inspection or review without the express written consent of such * * * correction officer * * * except as may be mandated by lawful court order.” 2 Respondent has offered no evidence establishing … gathered (see generally Matter of Spencer v New York State Police, 187 AD2d 919, 920-921 [1992]), beyond the routine process of contacting participants and witnesses, and in the absence of an allegation that anyone on the list qualifies

Chapman v. Fowler

132 A.D. 250 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 7, 1909

Fowler died, leaving a last will and testament whereby the defendants were appointed executors, which was duly probated on March 13,1906, and on said date letters testamentary were duly issued to the defendants, who duly qualified … such conduct, has acted upon it.’ ” There is no pretense in the case at bar that the- defendants had *254 any rights which were lost or affected to their detriment by the act of the plaintiff in accepting the stock which clearly

McGinigle v. Town of Greenburgh

59 A.D.2d 908 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 14, 1977

It thus follows that petitioner did properly maintain the security of the building and, hence, a finding of gross negligence is clearly unjustified. … Clearly, a good faith investigation concerning the purported misconduct of a public servant is a permissible state interest.

Murphy v. Murphy

44 A.D. 546 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 15, 1899

The widow of the testator and the defendant were made executors of the will, qualified as such and the trust estate of $20,000 came into the hands of the defendant. … Upon the proof as it stands the interest is clearly in the estate of the mother and those entitled to take therefrom.

Kelso v. Wall Street Funding

94 A.D.3d 1186 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 5, 2012

Although the letter expresses Countrywide’s intent to resubmit the issue to its document corrections department, it clearly qualifies this offer of help by informing plaintiff that it could not modify the property description … This proof, offered by defendants in support of their motion for summary judgment, establishes that defendants did not promise that they would remedy the defect for plaintiff but, instead, offered to make efforts on her behalf

People v. Doll

98 A.D.3d 356 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 6, 2012

Although the record indicates that the deputies seized defendant’s clothing, it does not clearly establish whether that seizure occurred before or after the victim’s body was found. … Although the record does not clearly establish the exact time of that seizure, the record does establish that it occurred after he was handcuffed.

In re Camp

18 A.D. 110 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 1, 1897

This would clearly have been so if the proof of them had been dependent upon evidence offered by the executor. … It is not seen that the surrogate treated the evidence in that respect as conclusive, but it may be: assumed that lie deemed it as sufficient to establish those, credits.

150 West 26th Street Corp. v. Galowitz

121 A.D.2d 214 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 5, 1986

Defendants claimed the protection of the Loft Law, arguing that, pursuant to Multiple Dwelling Law § 281, their lofts and the building qualify as an interim multiple dwelling (IMD). … Although the Chairman of the City Planning Commission had not issued his determination at the time of trial, any open issues before him were clearly resolved in defendants’ favor at trial.

People v. Sanchez

196 A.D.3d 1010 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 29, 2021

As to the ensuing canine search and thorough search that followed, "[i]t is well established that the odor of marihuana emanating from a vehicle, when detected by an officer qualified by training and experience to recognize … In reaching this conclusion, "great weight is accorded [County] [C]ourt's determination at a suppression hearing and, absent a basis in the record for finding that the court's resolution of credibility issues was clearly

In re Samuels

22 A.D.2d 564 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 25, 1965

The respondent maintains that he is not suffering from any mental disability rendering him unfit to practice law, and we agree that the record is lacking in competent proof to establish that he is now mentally ill. … This court has stated: “The public is entitled to have as members of the Bar persons who are qualified and fit, and it looks to the court for its protection.”

In re the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Proceedings of Arrowsmith

162 A.D. 623 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 29, 1914

do is clearly expressed in the will itself, for otherwise there would be introduced a repugnancy between the different portions of the will which the rules of construction forbid. … He did not press it, however, and with his acquiescence a judgment was entered dismissing his complaint. and establishing the validity of the will.