Case law

People v. Clanton

151 A.D.3d 1576 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 9, 2017

It is well established that the odor of marihuana emanating from a vehicle, “ ‘when detected by an officer qualified by training and experience to recognize it, is sufficient to constitute probable cause to search a vehicle … should be given to the determination of the suppression court, which had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses and to assess their credibility, and its factual findings should not be disturbed unless clearly

People v. Sharpe

166 A.D.2d 620 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 15, 1990

Moreover, CPL 40.20 (2) *622 (a) allows the separate prosecution of "joinable” offenses if "[t]he offenses as defined have substantially different elements and the acts establishing one offense are in the main clearly distinguishable … from those establishing the other” (CPL 40.20 [2] [a]).

Cayuga Indian Nation of New York v. Gould

66 A.D.2d 100 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 10, 2009

Indians may purchase cigarettes for such qualified Indians’ own use or consumption exempt from cigarette tax on their nations’ or tribes’ qualified reservations. … a mechanism for enforcing and collecting the tax on qualified reservations and preserves the tax exemption enjoyed by qualified Indians (see Day Wholesale, 51 AD3d at 384-385 ).

Lyons v. Shannahan

64 A.D. 264 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 15, 1901

What became of this money does not very clearly appear, or whether it was - paid over to the widow, except by inference that some one paid $6,500 on mortgages, but mortgages on which lot does not appear. … Though the evidence is not sufficient to establish the defendants’ allegation that the deed was procured by falsehood, fraud; duress or undue 'influence, it is barren of evidence to establish the necessity of a sale.

People v. Grimes

133 A.D.3d 1201 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 13, 2015

Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the police had probable cause to search his person inasmuch as “[t]he odor of marihuana emanating from a vehicle, when detected by an officer qualified by training and experience … The credibility determinations of the hearing court are entitled to great deference and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record, which is not the case here (see People v Ponzo, 111 AD3d 1347, 1347 [

DOLL, SCOTT F., PEOPLE v

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.

Almeyda v. Concourse Rehabilitation & Nursing Ctr., Inc.

2021 NY Slip Op 03521 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 3, 2021

We reject defendant's contention that plaintiff's expert was not qualified to offer an opinion regarding defendant's management of the geriatric decedent's diabetes. … Both Shipley and Melfi clearly state that damages may be awarded where the defendant "improperly deals with" the decedent's body, and we view these cases as supporting that theory of relief ( see Shipley , 25 NY3d at 653

Sessa v. Board of Assessors of North Elba

46 A.D.3d 1163 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 20, 2007

The holding in Matter of Abramov v Board of Assessors, Town of Hurley (supra) was qualified by the provision that prejudice to a petitioner as a result of a respondent’s delay could be a ground for denying a motion to dismiss … By letter to Supreme Court dated January 16, 2006, 3 after the parties had exchanged preliminary appraisals, respondent specifically sought an order from the court establishing a date for final appraisals to be filed with

Stevens v. Stevens

248 A.D. 344 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 19, 1936

Is it possible, legally, that she alone may take advantage of such valid marriage status, and that he, because of the void decree, may not establish her adultery, if he can do so, and have the marriage lawfully dissolved … This case is clearly distinguishable from Starbuck v. Starbuck and kindred cases (supra). Here the appellant is not urging the invalidity of the Nevada decree as a basis of any right asserted by him.

Rorke v. Kings County Elevated Railway Co.

22 A.D. 511 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 1, 1897

And whatever view we might have taken of it if the trial had been heard by us originally, the conclusion of the trial court cannot properly be overruled on this review unless it can -be seen that it .was clearly against the … After the witness who was qualified as an expert had testified that *515 the property in this vicinity on Fnlton street had decreased in value within the past few years, he was asked, “ What has been the cause of decrease

Gurda v. Orange County Publications Division of Ottaway Newspapers, Inc.

81 A.D.2d 120 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 8, 1981

In its decision, the court found that the evidence adduced at trial established “an actual intent to hinder or delay [Aetna] in satisfying any judgment which [Aetna] might *128 recover against * * * Hambly.” … Clearly, the award of counsel fees could well have been seen as a penalty or “fine” by one untutored in the law.

People v. Al-Kanani

31 A.D.2d 838 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 24, 1969

The admission of this testimony then constituted substantial error and was clearly prejudicial to the defense. Beldock, P. … This evidence was inadmissible to establish guilt (People v. Bianculli, 9 N Y 2d 468; People v. Travato, 309 N. Y. 382 ).

Dozier v. New York City

130 A.D.2d 128 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 10, 1987

After their medical examinations, the petitioners were marked medically qualified; and, on or about October 15, 1984, they were appointed to the position of probationary conductor. … Applying these rules to this case, certain of the petitioners’ claims are clearly unreviewable on the basis of a failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

People v. Sweeney

161 A.D. 221 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 6, 1914

In the first place the evidence of accomplices, alone, if believed by the jury, is sufficient to establish the fact that a crime has been committed. … His statement was that he met Murtha, whom he knew well, and that the latter expressed a desire to see the district attorney, remarking that he “wanted immunity.”

Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Gordon

2019 NY Slip Op 2306 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 27, 2019

That said, "[i]t would clearly defeat the utility of CPLR 4518 to require the testimony of all persons involved in creating the record" (Jerome Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 8-306 [Farrell 11th ed 1995]). … Indeed, "[t]he reports of an independent contractor regularly relied on by the business may qualify as the business' record" (Jerome Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 8-307 [Farrell 11th ed 1995]; cf. General Ins.

Almeyda v. Concourse Rehabilitation & Nursing Ctr., Inc.

2021 NY Slip Op 03521 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 3, 2021

We reject defendant's contention that plaintiff's expert was not qualified to offer an opinion regarding defendant's management of the geriatric decedent's diabetes. … Both Shipley and Melfi clearly state that damages may be awarded where the defendant "improperly deals with" the decedent's body, and we view these cases as supporting that theory of relief ( see Shipley , 25 NY3d at 653

People v. Murphy

2019 NY Slip Op 685 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 31, 2019

The jury clearly rejected defendant's testimony, which was rife with credibility issues. … All of this evidence qualified under the state-law excited utterance and medical diagnosis/treatment exceptions to the hearsay rule.

Town of Lumberland v. New York State Division of Human Rights

229 A.D.2d 631 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 3, 1996

The report also referenced Golembiowsky’s failure to qualify with the shotgun in 1986 and an alleged misrepresentation as to the reason why she had failed to qualify. … qualifications for the position as well as the Town Supervisor’s testimony that, at the time of her 1988 reappointment, he felt that Golembiowsky was a good officer and all of the Town Board members had voted for her reappointment, clearly

People ex rel. Andrews v. Cameron

140 A.D. 76 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 14, 1910

They will not be sustained unless such clearly appears to have been the intent of the Legislature. … A long list of authorities in this and other States, might be cited *81 supporting the proposition that the presumption is against exemption from taxation, and that the right to exemption must be clearly established before

Austin v. Board of Higher Education

5 A.D.2d 664 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 27, 1958

Thus, the case may be properly interpreted to stand for the proposition that Toscano would be regarded as having all the rights of reinstatement because he was clearly entitled to reinstatement, and the municipality in effecting … Plaintiffs will eventually have to establish the facts asserted in their pleading, and sustain their right either under the Slochower case, or otherwise.