Case law

Incorporated Village of Great Neck Plaza v. Nassau County Rent Guidelines Board

69 A.D.2d 528 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 23, 1979

Establishment of rent guidelines boards; duties, a. … Members shall continue in office until their successors have been appointed and qualified.

RUSSO, ARTHEA v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF, HUMAN RIGHTS

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 18, 2016

“To establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination, petitioner was required to demonstrate that she was a member of a protected class, that she was qualified for her position, that she was terminated from employment … “The burden then shifts to the employer ‘to rebut the presumption of discrimination by clearly setting forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence, legitimate, independent, and nondiscriminatory reasons to support

Stephens v. Crawford

209 A.D. 142 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 2, 1924

fair to assume that the present note was for a larger amount than those canceled and surrendered, and that the recital made by the decedent, of the giving of the present note for the reasons and purposes stated by him, clearly … We must infer from that language that they came to the ownership of the plaintiffs in some legal way — by purchase or gift from some one; and if there was nothing else in the paper qualifying the declaration no one would

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”.

Davis v. Kerr

3 A.D. 322 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 1, 1896

.: The controversy in this case arises out of a trust of $4,000, established by the will of Catharine E. Sinclair. … Bing was clearly made out. The account in the Surrogate’s Court was proof of the receipt and joint possession of the trust money by both trustees. (Glacius v. Fogel, 88 N. Y. 434, 443 .)

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.

Potenzo v. City of New York

139 N.Y.S.3d 156 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 29, 2020

Therefore, the path that plaintiff slipped on clearly qualifies as a walkway within the meaning of 23-1.7(d). All concur except Kern, J. who dissents in a memorandum as follows: KERN, J. … The majority ignores well-established precedent when it holds that "the fact that the walkway on which plaintiff fell was in an open area is not determinative of our analysis."

Cesario v. Chiapparine

21 A.D.2d 272 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 25, 1964

Whether plaintiffs established facts from which the jury might find that the defendants were negligent presents a question more difficult of solution. … Clearly, too, the location of the side entrance of the Cesario house opening to the alleyway is evidence that pedestrian use of the alleyway was within the ambit of the easement (Matter of Huie, 22 Misc 2d 1028 ; 17 N.

Rupert v. Sellers

65 A.D.2d 473 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 15, 1978

The letter of March 10, 1971 clearly libels plaintiffs in these respects. … Nor does the qualified privilege, as the term itself suggests, confer absolute immunity; it may be overcome by an evidentiary showing that the defamatory statements were motivated by malice, i.e., ill-will, personal spite

Travlos v. Commercial Union of America, Inc.

217 A.D. 352 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 6, 1926

In fact it is difficult to find a case where such a construction would clearly apply. … The statute is satisfied if the success of the plaintiff necessarily establishes the main question of fact which the defendant must establish to pass on, in whole or in part, the liability to the omitted third party.” *359

Holloway v. McWilliams

97 A.D. 360 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 15, 1904

Then follows the provision above cited in reference to the maximum weigiit, which is clearly intended to establish the foundation for the tests provided for in this section. … I am clearly of opinion that he had not, and that the verdict of the jury was amply justified.

Byers v. Baxter

69 A.D.2d 343 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 26, 1979

In Auerbach v Bennett ( 64 AD2d 98, 107-108 ) (appeal to the Court of Appeals pending), Justice Hopkins speaking for the Appellate Division said: "The committee’s decision clearly depends on the depth and amplitude of the … Nor should the report of the outside directors be immune from scrutiny by an interpretation of the doctrine *349 which compels the acceptance of the findings of the report on their face * * * "In short, the business judgment

In re Beck

254 A.D. 110 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 29, 1938

information that a candidate whose name appears on an eligible list has a questionable character or reputation, or is otherwise unfit mentally or physically to hold the position in the City Service he will be marked ‘ Not Qualified … The criminal character or habits of the individual, the chief postulate of habitual criminal statutes, is often as clearly disclosed by a pardoned conviction as by one never condoned.

People v. Hernandez

98 A.D.3d 449 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 21, 2012

The court found that the timing of the plea was significant because, in its opinion, “something clearly changed” during the lunchtime break at the Huntley hearing. … To establish ineffective assistance, a defendant must first show that counsel’s performance fell below “an objective standard of reasonableness” 0Strickland, 466 US at 688 ).

People v. Hernandez

98 A.D.3d 449 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 21, 2012

The court found that the timing of the plea was significant because, in its opinion, “something clearly changed” during the lunchtime break at the Huntley hearing. … To establish ineffective assistance, a defendant must first show that counsel’s performance fell below “an objective standard of reasonableness” 0Strickland, 466 US at 688 ).

People v. Pleasant

76 A.D.2d 244 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 17, 1980

The court there stated that "he cannot claim immunity from prosecution simply because his appearance in court was precipitated by an unlawful arrest” (at p 474). … Clearly no reasonable nexus exists between the tainted conduct of the Suffolk County police and the proposed identification testimony.

People ex rel. Briggs v. Hanley

185 A.D. 667 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 10, 1919

When it went into the possession of Foye, whose money was it f Clearly it was not Foye’s. His possession of the money was the consummation of a. series of acts constituting larceny. … The operation of depositing the money for a few minutes in a bank and then drawing it out again could work no immunity to the person receiving the money with full knowledge of the transaction.

People v. Draper

169 A.D. 479 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 15, 1915

Plath ( 100 N.Y. 590, 597 ), “has a right to require that the elements of his offense shall be clearly defined by law and established by legal proof before he can be convicted thereof, and until then he may safely assert … his immunity from punishment for any offense which is not thus defined and proved.

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.

In re Judicial Settlement of Accounts of Hogarty

62 A.D. 79 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 1, 1901

We think that the construction of the will before us is not difficult, and that the canons of interpretation established by the authorities in this State may be applied to it with certainty; indeed we are of the opinion that … ” The rule we have applied in this, case was clearly recognized and upheld in that case, and we think it: clearly appears from the reasoning of the court and the authorities-, discussed that had it not been for this clause