Case law

Atlantic Capital Realty v. Cayuga Capital Management, LLC

116 A.D.3d 890 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 23, 2014

Here, even assuming that the documents relied upon by the defendants in support of that branch of their motion which seeks dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) qualify as documentary evidence (see Fontanetta v John Doe … In addition, contrary to the defendants’ contention, the allegations of the complaint which assert a claim for damages as a result of the defendants’ alleged breach of an agreement to pay an earned commission also clearly

People v. Murphy

93 A.D. 383 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 15, 1904

. * He quotes 'Wharton as saying : “ To sustain a conviction for a crime produced by a negligent act, a causal connection must be alleged and established between the act and the result.” … It is sufficient if the idea is clearly and distinctly expressed, for neither clerical nor grammatical errors will. vitiate, unless they change the word or obscure the meaning.”

Lans v. Farnam

2025 NY Slip Op 03679 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 18, 2025

Plaintiffs cross-moved for summary judgment and opposed, arguing that CDTA clearly breached its duty by dropping Lans off at a location where she could not alight from the bus and move safely away, which was a direct cause … "The overarching principle governing determinations of proximate cause is that a defendant's negligence qualifies as a proximate cause where it is a substantial cause of the events that produced the injury.

Koehler v. Syracuse Specialty Manufacturing Co.

42 N.Y.S. 182 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 16, 1896

established the same or either of them. … He was, therefore, sui juris, and, in the absence of evidence tending to show that he was not qualified to understand and appreciate the situation in which he was placed, and the possible danger arising therefrom, he was

Gallant v. Kanterman

198 A.D.2d 76 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 16, 1993

With that in mind, our review of the pleadings is guided by the principle that further discovery, and even a third amended complaint, are justified except where dismissal of a particular claim is clearly warranted as a matter … Under these unique circumstances, the first cause of action should not have been dismissed as against the Rostolder defendants without clear evidence establishing that they were not in possession of Donald Kanterman’s assets

People v. Ugweches

116 A.D.3d 440 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 3, 2014

These declarations did not qualify as excited utterances, and, under the circumstances of the case, they were not admissible as background information to complete the narrative and explain police actions. … Any benefit that defendant may have gained when his counsel attempted to suggest that a police witness fabricated the existence of the bystander declarations was clearly outweighed by the prejudicial effect of having the

Grant v. Pratt & Lambert

52 A.D. 540 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 15, 1900

At the close of the proof the defendant, having offered nó evidence, moved to dismiss the complaint upon the ground, among others, that no breach of the contract .was established; that if any breach had been established it … The'rule governing the effect" of admissions contained in a pleading requires that the matter shall be taken as á whole, and the admission is limited by any statement therein which qualifies or explains. (Oakley v.

Ramos v. City of New York

285 A.D.2d 284 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 16, 2001

The court dismissed all such claims against Farrell in her individual capacity on the basis of absolute immunity (Ying Jing Gan v City of New York, 996 F2d 522) and, in her official capacity, on the ground of qualified immunity … Moreover, the court dismissed as to the NYPD and HRA, on the basis that collateral estoppel, again, barred the claims when a judicial finding established that the relevant records were, in fact, turned over to the District

Pillco v. 160 Dikeman St., LLC

2025 NY Slip Op 04495 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 30, 2025

indicated that the plaintiff was the source of the information contained therein"]; see also Goodrich v Watermill Townhouses , 169 Misc 2d 314, 319 [Sup Ct, Ulster County] [the records clearly indicated that the plaintiff … However, to be sufficient, the medical record must clearly indicate that the plaintiff was the source of the information ( see Robles v Polytemp, Inc. , 127 AD3d at 1054 ).

Sun Co. v. City of Syracuse Industrial Development Agency

209 A.D.2d 34 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 17, 1995

business establishment to relocate from one place to another. … Pyramid may influence SIDA’s decision with respect to what properties will be condemned, but the Preferred Developer Agreement clearly establishes that the condemnation decision is SIDA’s and SIDA’s alone (see, e.g., ]f 8

DiBlasio v. Novello

28 A.D.3d 339 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 20, 2006

On November 21, 2003, respondents wrote to AHO Zylberberg requesting that the in camera inspection be “canceled” on the ground that the Root Cause Analysis did not qualify as exculpatory evidence, as defined by the case law … Thus, even if an agreement could be found to have existed, it was clearly and unequivocally withdrawn by OPMC’s counsel and no enforceable agreement existed under 10 NYCRR 51.8 (a).

Yeshiva Gedolah Zichron Moshe v. Church Mut. Ins. Co.

2024 NY Slip Op 06256 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 12, 2024

The declarations page of the policy clearly stated that the limit of builder's risk insurance was $2.7 million. … [FN8] The dollar amount on the declarations page does not qualify as technical or complex language.

First Construction Co. v. State

174 A.D. 560 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 5, 1916

It was not the granting to a private corporation, association or individual of any exclusive privilege, immunity or franchise prohibited by section 18 of the article alluded to, for in this case it was only the granting of … They do not in terms grant in fee, but in so far as the upland owners have exercised the right given by the statutes to fill in, etc., they clearly obtained a property right therein in the nature of a grant, which the Legislature

Estate of Del Terzo v. 33 Fifth Avenue Owners Corp.

136 A.D.3d 486 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 11, 2016

Michael, now married with an adult child, lives in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, where he has an established medical practice. He does not intend to move to New York at the present time, but still visits his brother. … Clearly this provision was included to more easily allow an existing coop owner to devise or gift his or her cooperative apartment dynastically.

Page v. State

22 A.D.2d 834 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 17, 1964

At the trial of the claim the State, without objection, adduced expert testimony through a qualified forester that the presence of the trees was not an enhancing element. … Such is clearly the purport of its decision. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

R. H. Sanbar Projects, Inc. v. Gruzen Partnership

148 A.D.2d 316 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 7, 1989

The agreement also allowed Sanbar, inter alia, to retain qualified architects and engineers. Sanbar, by a letter agreement, hired defendant Philip Birnbaum & Associates, P. C. … The filings by Gruzen on behalf of DHT as sponsor and the owner’s consent clearly indicate that some nexus was created between Gruzen and DHT raising, at the least, a question of fact with respect to the issue of privity.

New York & Queens Electric Light & Power Co. v. City of New York

221 A.D. 544 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 4, 1927

decision of the Court of Appeals the city had no more right to interfere with the plaintiff’s proper exercise of its franchise than would a private railroad corporation or an individual have. “ It can lawfully claim no immunity … This the company refused to do and brought action to establish the invalidity of the ordinance and to enjoin its enforcement. The United States Supreme Court held the ordinance unconstitutional.

Willkie v. Delaware County Board of Elections

55 A.D.3d 1088 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 23, 2008

Lauricella, David Hendricks and Stephen Robbins did not reside in Bovina and, consequently, were not qualified to vote there. … They utilize a Bovina post office box as their mailing address for all purposes and clearly expressed their intent to someday live full-time in Bovina.

In re the Estate of McDonald

160 A.D. 86 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 9, 1914

He qualified and entered upon the discharge of his duties as such. … They are denied in the answer, but if established by evidence, no one, I take it, would contend for a moment that the appellant ought to be longer continued as administrator.

Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.

2019 NY Slip Op 4777 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 13, 2019

The allegations of plaintiff's complaint paragraphs 83 and 84 purport to establish a basis for general jurisdiction. … It, therefore, does not qualify as a specific denial that would have put plaintiff on notice that the defendant is contesting general jurisdiction .