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. McLaughlin

2 A.D. 419 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 15, 1896

It does not satisfy the requirement of the statute if the declaration is qualified or conditional. … The entry itself was, therefore, clearly competent ás tending to prove this fact. The prosecution' had ño- other way of proving it in view ■of the want of memory of Seagrist.

MatterofHudsonValleyCommunityCollege[HudsonValleyCommunityCollegeFacultyAssociation]

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 23, 2014

However, it also provides that "[m]atters relating to [HVCC's] decision to retrench, fill, refill, establish and/or re-establish bargaining unit positions shall not be arbitrable hereunder. … We agree with Supreme Court that this language clearly and unambiguously manifests the parties' intention to exclude the subject matter of retrenchment from arbitration.

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.

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.

Clements v. Connecticut Indemnity Co.

51 N.Y.S. 442 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 7, 1898

He further represented that his habits had always-been temperate and sober, although, in his first application, he qualified this statement by saying that he “formerly used some beer”; and the falsity of this representation … is likewise fully established; by the evidence of witnesses who frequently saw him under the influence of liquor.

Polish American Immigration Relief Committee, Inc. v. Relax

189 A.D.2d 370 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 13, 1993

The words at issue here are clearly rhetorical hyperbole and vigorous epithet, and thus constitute nonactionable expressions of opinion under Federal or State constitutional standards. … Heyduk alleged facts which established that they acted without malice or gross irresponsibility in publishing the letter and interview, including an offer to plaintiffs’ attorney to publish any response from PAIRC with respect

Matter of State of New York v. Richard V.

2024 NY Slip Op 02158 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 23, 2024

The court clearly used this study to discredit both Dr. Cox's and Dr. … [FN4] The court clearly relied upon these studies in determining that Dr.

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

MATTER OF MARCUS v. Baron

84 A.D.2d 118 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 31, 1981

Presently, our Constitution lodges the creative power of local governments in the Legislature “in such manner as shall secure to them the rights, powers, privileges and immunities granted to them” (NY Const, art IX, § 2, … This statement, however, simply describes the general police power and cannot be considered to qualify the traditional authority of the Legislature to create municipal *136 corporations.

In re the Arbitration between Bukowski

148 A.D.3d 1386 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 16, 2017

Respondents argue that the penalty imposed by the arbitrator here qualifies for judicial intervention under the second prong of this test, in that the relief granted by the arbitrator in reducing Bukowski’s penalty from termination … We reach a different conclusion as to respondents’ alternate contention that the matter qualifies for judicial intervention because the penalty of suspension, imposed for the particular offenses that the arbitrator found

In re the Arbitration between Bukowski

148 A.D.3d 1386 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 16, 2017

Respondents argue that the penalty imposed by the arbitrator here qualifies for judicial intervention under the second prong of this test, in that the relief granted by the arbitrator in reducing Bukowski’s penalty from termination … We reach a different conclusion as to respondents’ alternate contention that the matter qualifies for judicial intervention because the penalty of suspension, imposed for the particular offenses that the arbitrator found

Gutowska v. Childs Co.

5 A.D.2d 245 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 11, 1958

The jury awarded a total sum of $25,500 against both defendants, but the basis upon which the damages were fixed is not clearly ascertainable from the record. … However, insofar as the question of qualified privilege is concerned, the answers failed to allege that defense.

9th & 10th Street L.L.C. v. Board of Standards & Appeals

43 A.D.3d 36 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 29, 2007

It is not sufficient that you intend to enter into a lease with a qualifying entity, or that you intend to enter into a restrictive declaration that would meet the Department’s requirements. … Unlike most other uses that can be established by any party, a dormitory use can only be established by controlling educational institutions.”

Kliger-Weiss Infosystems, Inc. v. Darien Sport Shop, Inc.

2025 NY Slip Op 04981 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 17, 2025

"In order for evidence submitted under a CPLR 3211(a)(1) motion to qualify as documentary evidence, it must be unambiguous, authentic, and undeniable" ( Cives Corp. v George A. … Here, there was clearly a valid contract, and the amount in dispute was incurred pursuant to the contract.

Balanoff v. Niosi

16 A.D.3d 53 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 7, 2005

It should be noted that in those proceedings Ditroia bears the ultimate burden of establishing her reasonable requirements and she may not continue to benefit from her default 3 (see Matter of Olson v Olson, supra; Matter … That income execution clearly stated that the respondents had to make monthly payments of maintenance directly to Ditroia.

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

Alex LL. v. Albany County Department of Social Services

270 A.D.2d 523 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 2, 2000

To the contrary, despite Family Court’s limitation on the evidence received, the record generally supports a finding that the father is qualified to serve as a custodian for the child. … Even if there was a basis for limiting the evidence to the statutory period (and, given the nature of the father’s defense to the petition, there clearly was not), we note that under Social Services Law § 384-b (7) (a) the

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.

Simonson v. Waller

9 A.D. 503 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 1, 1896

Taylor and Shaw duly qualified and received grant of probate or letters testamentary. The third person never qualified. SliaAV died in 1866, and George W. Taylor in 1879. … Whether it is inconsistent or not, such is clearly the law which com trols this case.