Case law

O'Doherty v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co.

113 A.D. 636 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 8, 1906

J., clearly assumes that had the defendant elicited.anything material to the pase he could not thereafter have impeached the witness, although such witness subsequently was sworn for. the plaintiff, and the case of Coulter … In such cases not only the facts, but the coiiclusions to which they lead, may be tes *642 tified to by Qualified experts.”

Durkee v. Smith

171 A.D. 72 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 5, 1916

That is all the evidence there is tending to establish a secret trust. Mr. … Y. 282 ) are clearly distinguishable from the present case.

Tutunjian v. Conroy

55 A.D.3d 1128 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 28, 2008

To ascertain that intent, we first read the statute literally and determine whether its language is unambiguous and clearly expresses the Legislature’s intent (see McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 76; Matter … Thus, “[a] charter commission may he established by a city governing body notwithstanding the existence of such a commission previously created by the city mayor.

United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Tax Appeals Tribunal

98 A.D.3d 796 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 16, 2012

We are of the view that they do so qualify and, therefore, that petitioner is entitled to the exemption set forth in Tax Law § 1115 (n) (4). … As such, we conclude that the Tribunal’s determination was irrational and clearly erroneous and that petitioner has satisfied its burden of establishing “that its interpretation of the statute is not only plausible, but also

Watson v. City of New York

67 A.D. 573 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 1, 1902

phrases were used, it evidenced, an intent from which was raised the presumption that the grant extended to the center of the highway or stream, and that in the; absence of other language contained in the deed qualifying … If a deed, whose words simply opérate by way of presumption to carry the title to the center of the street may be regarded as ambiguous in description, then clearly such rule is applicable to the ■deed now under consideration

United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Tax Appeals Tribunal

98 A.D.3d 796 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 16, 2012

We are of the view that they do so qualify and, therefore, that petitioner is entitled to the exemption set forth in Tax Law § 1115 (n) (4). … As such, we conclude that the Tribunal’s determination was irrational and clearly erroneous and that petitioner has satisfied its burden of establishing “that its interpretation of the statute is not only plausible, but also

Farrell v. Board of Health

243 A.D. 332 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 9, 1935

Grant and Florence Daley as legally qualified for appointment as health nurses. … A restriction upon such power will not be extended beyond the limitation clearly intended to be imposed by the law, rule or order creating the restraint.

Wimmer v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.

92 A.D. 258 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 15, 1904

The conversation was clearly collateral, and when the witness Worden denied that such statement was made to him at that time, the plaintiff had no legal right to contradict it. … Falser to testify as an expert in nervous diseases after he had stated that he was not *262 qualified to' give expert testimony upon the subject, which are doubtful in the extreme.

Guynup v. County of Clinton

74 A.D.3d 1552 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 10, 2010

In addition, Favro, in choosing the County Administrator, picked a County official who, pursuant to county law, had administrative responsibilities that clearly impacted upon the daily operation of the Sheriffs Department … Here, no evidence was presented establishing that, during the struggle, the rifle was loaded with ammunition or that petitioner threatened his wife with it.

Meehan v. Nassau Community College

243 A.D.2d 12 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 8, 1998

The union asserted that the college was applying its standards selectively, resulting in the assignment of sometimes less-qualified full-time faculty members to teach various history courses. … This clearly establishes a waiver (see, Matter of Stevens & Co.

Perlrose Realty Corp. v. New York City Loft Board

145 A.D.2d 159 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 9, 1989

Inasmuch as we do not believe that a specific finding of bad faith is required to establish that the landlord has engaged in harassment, which is sufficiently demonstrated in this record, we reverse and reinstate the Loft … Moreover, the regulation clearly contemplates that a finding of harassment be left to the sound discretion of the Loft Board.

People v. Willard

226 A.D.2d 1014 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 25, 1996

In our view the comment was innocuous and clearly could not have prejudiced the jury (see, supra). … Clearly, defendants had the information regarding the complainant’s alleged recantation well before the June 1994 trial.

In re Benjamin L.

9 A.D.3d 153 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 15, 2004

Shapiro and Bank, when coupled with the undisputed facts, clearly established petition *157 er’s prima facie case of abuse as against respondents. … Paul Halebian, Kendall’s treating physician at the New York Hospital-Cornell Medical College, who was qualified as an expert witness in medicine with a subspecialty in burns. Dr.

Murphy v. Mallard Coach Co.

179 A.D.2d 187 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 9, 1992

The warranty expressly stated that defects would be remedied within 30 days and this one clearly was not. … as a written warranty under the Act (see, Marine Midland Bank v Carroll, 98 AD2d 516 , supra), which warranty clearly was breached.

Venecia V. v. August V.

113 A.D.3d 122 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 5, 2013

Nothing in the record establishes that the children lacked the capacity for voluntary judgment as required by Rules of the Chief Judge (22 NYCRR) § 7.2. … The relevant clause in the parties’ 2005 agreement clearly designated 2005 as the base year, thus indicating that increases would begin in 2006.

Claim of Winfield v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad

168 A.D. 351 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 7, 1915

An employee is not prej - udiced by the fact that his employer qualifies as a self-insurer or insures otherwise than in the State fund. … Congress has not established any general rule of liability or method of compensation between employers and employees.

O'Keefe v. Mayor

51 N.Y.S. 710 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 13, 1898

Starting with the proposition, which was clearly established, that the ice had been rarely removed from this walk, it was made to appear by several witnesses that, for a considerable time before the 2d of February, the walk … Upon a careful examination of this case, we are forced to the conclusion that the testimony presented by the plaintiff clearly tended, if believed by the jury, to establish the negligence on the part of the municipal corporation

Connell v. Town Board

113 A.D.2d 359 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 5, 1985

The final step, should this court decide the issue of public interest in favor of annexation, will be a vote by the qualified voters of the territory to be annexed. … Since the article 78 proceeding herein was commenced nearly 15 months after the resolution was adopted, it was clearly untimely.

People v. Raizen

211 A.D. 446 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 29, 1925

The jury was a special one, known as a “ blue-ribbon ” panel; every one of those summoned had qualified for duty before the commissioner *452 of jurors, and in doing so had signed affidavits in regard to their qualifications … guilt or innocence of the defendant was clearly one of fact for the jury to determine.

McKenzie v. Jackson

152 A.D.2d 1 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 6, 1989

the specimen in a private setting and in a manner that should not demean, embarrass or cause physical discomfort to the employee; (4) documenting each step involved in the collection and processing of the urine sample to establish … Unlike Caruso (supra) where the procedural safeguards were not yet in place, here, the safeguards are clearly set forth in the Department’s "Operational Guidelines”.