Case law

CDL West 45th Street LLC v. City of New York Department of Finance

308 A.D.2d 210 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 17, 2003

Had the Legislature intended to quantify or qualify the term it would have done so through an appropriately worded definition. … Since the total area of the proposed construction would have exceeded the maximum permissible floor area ratio for the zoning lot on which the three structures were situated, the lot on which the New Wing is situated was established

Reed v. City of New York

304 A.D.2d 1 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 13, 2003

a proven, established risk of continuing to deteriorate into Parkinson’s and/or Alzheimer’s disease. … Defendants also failed to establish an evidentiary foundation for a charge on mitigation of damages.

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 [

Gibbs v. Breed

227 A.D.2d 196 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 9, 1996

However, it is equally clear that if WTiitman Breed qualifies as Breed Abbott’s successor within the meaning of section 15.2, then that firm can be held liable for payment of these entitlements, and should be joined in the … allegations of Breed Abbott’s dissolution and transfer of its assets and business contained insufficient detail to show successorship within the meaning of the agreement, and that defendants were entitled to have the matter more clearly

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.

People v. Baker

254 A.D.2d 4 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 1, 1998

theft of services were contained in a small paper bag, did not constitute evidence that defendant could not have discovered with reasonable diligence before determination of the motion to suppress, because defendant was clearly … Since the purported “new evidence” would not have materially affected the earlier determination, it did not qualify as an “additional pertinent fact” within the meaning of CPL 710.40 (4) (see, People v Clark, 88 NY2d 552,

Nowack v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.

66 N.Y.S. 533 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 9, 1900

That declarations of the character made by this witness would not be competent evidence against the defendant seems to be clearly established by the authorities. Thus, in Thallhimer v. … Not only the agreement that he makes, but all his declarations affecting or qualifying such agreement, are binding on the principal; but wbat an agent says at another time, or of his own authority, is not evidence against

Spence v. Kitchens

2022 NY Slip Op 06355 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 10, 2022

We agree with plaintiff, however, that he met his initial burden on his cross motion of establishing that defendant was not operating an "authorized emergency vehicle" at the time of the accident and thus that the reckless … Further, defendant did not qualify as an ambulance service.

Spence v. Kitchens

2022 NY Slip Op 06355 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 10, 2022

We agree with plaintiff, however, that he met his initial burden on his cross motion of establishing that defendant was not operating an "authorized emergency vehicle" at the time of the accident and thus that the reckless … Further, defendant did not qualify as an ambulance service.

People ex rel. Schelpp v. Knox

48 A.D. 477 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 15, 1900

This clearly permitted the board to promote a patrolman for such conduct as that which led to the promotion of the relator in the case at bar. … In the so-called White Act, the section which provides for the establishment of a classified city service through the agency of a municipal civil service commission, expressly declares that the authority conferred "by that

People v. Gomcin

265 A.D.2d 493 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 18, 1999

Our dissenting colleagues argue that the defendant clearly had the ability to deliver cocaine, since cocaine was found on his person. … However, it is beyond cavil that the fruit of a search incident to an arrest cannot be used to establish probable cause to arrest (see, Smith v Ohio, 494 US 541 ).

Appleton v. Merchants Mutual Insurance

16 A.D.2d 361 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 17, 1962

One fact stands out clearly. He had never established another legal residence of any kind since he left the household. … If mere physical presence is sufficient to establish a residence, without more, one could change his residence by taking a vacation.

Schuler-Haas Electric Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

49 A.D.2d 60 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 18, 1975

It has been stipulated herein that plaintiff qualifies as a proper claimant. … for the project which provide that the contractor shall pay his subcontractors within a stated number of days after the contractor has received payment from the owner, merely fix the time when payment is due and do not establish

People ex rel. Holmes v. Lane

53 A.D. 531 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 1, 1900

Dean was duly appointed his successor and qualified and was acting in that capacity in 1899. … That was fixed by the general words clearly indicating the purpose to create nothing more than a local city court.

Nowack v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.

54 A.D. 302 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 1, 1900

That declarations of this character made by this witness would not be competent evidence against the defendant seems to be clearly established by the authorities. Thus in Thallhimer v. … Hot only the agreement that he makes, but all his declarations affecting or qualifying such agreement, are binding on the principal; but what, an agent says at another time, or of his own authority, is not evidence against

Morey v. State

31 A.D.2d 990 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 11, 1969

The agreement further released the State from any and all claims for damages in connection with .the re-establishment of the driveway after the completion of such .adjustment work, and further provided that the release did … with the construction of the driveway, that intention should have been clearly expressed (McKinney’s Cons.

Northridge Cooperative Section No. 1, Inc. v. 32nd Avenue Construction Corp.

286 A.D. 422 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 28, 1955

Accepting this premise, the first cause of action is clearly sufficient. … In any event, this perfunctory showing cannot meet the requirement of law regarding disclosure which must be established in order to bind a beneficiary against his fiduciary’s fraud irrespective of its extent or nature.

East Hampton Union Free School District v. Sandpebble Builders, Inc.

66 A.D.2d 122 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 28, 2009

the principal case cited by the dissent in support of its view, the Court of Appeals held that “[a] corporate officer who is charged with inducing the breach of a contract between the corporation *128 and a third party is immune … Again, these allegations, although clearly sufficient to demonstrate Canseco’s domination over the corporation in its dealings with the district, do not assert or suggest that he abused the privilege of doing business in

Kent v. Papert Companies, Inc.

309 A.D.2d 234 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 18, 2003

There, the court clearly limited the recovery for discriminatory pay to the statutory period (id. at 351). … As the record clearly shows, Landon did not hire plaintiff, who never even applied for a position with it, because it had no job openings for which she was qualified.

Jenkins v. Jenkins

145 A.D.3d 1231 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 8, 2016

In this regard, "it is clear that judicial records, as well as . . . any other papers, the contents of which are essentially undeniable, would qualify as documentary evidence in the proper case" (Fontanetta v John Doe 1, … Hunt Club v Town of Claverack, 222 AD2d at 770), which clearly evidences the parties' intent to reach an integrated resolution of the disputes then pending between them.