Case law

Mahmood v. County of Suffolk

2018 NY Slip Op 7715 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 14, 2018

It is settled that an unambiguous contract provision may qualify as documentary evidence within the meaning of CPLR 3211(a)(1) ( see Wilson v Poughkeepsie City Sch. … The contract clearly provides that the plaintiff's failure to close pursuant to the terms and conditions of sale will result in a forfeiture of the down payment; that in the event the closing is postponed at the plaintiff's

A.L. v. Chaminade Mineola Socy. of Mary, Inc.

2022 NY Slip Op 01994 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 23, 2022

The Supreme Court properly declined to address the appellants' contention that they were immune from liability pursuant to a so-called express assumption of risk defense premised upon a parental consent form executed by A … "The promise to indemnify should not be found unless it can be clearly implied from the language and purpose of the entire agreement and the surrounding circumstances" ( George v Marshalls of MA, Inc. , 61 AD3d at 930 ; see

People v. Caruso

34 A.D.3d 860 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 2, 2006

However, at the Huntley hearing it was established that the arrest warrant was marked withdrawn within 15 minutes or less of the time it was signed, it was not filed, it was signed while the justice was outside his jurisdiction … Defendant’s first response to the question of whether he wished to speak (i.e., “Not right now”) was temporally qualified, it did not clearly communicate, a desire to cease all questioning indefinitely and, in fact, connoted

Sun Printing & Publishing Ass'n v. Mayor

8 A.D. 230 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 1, 1896

The case at this point is clearly within the principle of People ex rel. Murphy v. Kelly ( 76 N. Y. 475 ). … The distinction between cities and ordinary corporations is thus clearly drawn.

National Organization for Women v. State Division of Human Rights

40 A.D.2d 107 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 30, 1972

Two cases have considered the question of whether a newspaper qualifies as an employment agency as that term is used in anti-discrimination legislation. In NOW v. Buffalo Courier Express ( 71 Misc 2d 917, 918 ), Mr. … The maintenance of separate columns *117 of help wanted advertisements designated by sex does not, standing alone, establish such participation. The determination should be confirmed. Del Vecchio, J.

People v. Henderson

156 A.D.2d 92 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 16, 1990

The primary witness for the People at the "vulnerability” hearing was Flora Colao, a social worker who was qualified as an expert in the field of the aftermath and affects of sexual abuse on child victims. Ms. … Clearly, these children have been emotionally harmed by the abuse which they are alleged to have suffered at the hands of the defendant, as are all children who have been sexually abused.

Bennett v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co.

26 A.D. 363 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 1, 1898

If it had qualified the Word “ furnished ” there would be ground for the defendant’s contention. The other words are “ furnished per day of 21 hours.” … The ¡jury, under this evidencé, might ■ properly infer that the plaintiffs had established the fact required by the charge of the court.

Melbourne v. New York Life Insurance

271 A.D.2d 296 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 18, 2000

In the matter before us, there is no dispute that a prostate examination is not an authorized component of a paramedical examination and that Gomez was not qualified to perform it in any event. … Accordingly, IMR cannot be held vicariously liable for Gomez’s acts as they clearly were outside the scope of his employment (see, Judith M. v Sisters of Charity Hosp., supra; Mataxas v North Shore Univ.

McCart v. Morris

58 A.D.2d 700 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 23, 1977

In certain instances, where the utterance of the defendant is not clearly actionable per se, the surrounding circumstances and conditions must be taken into account to determine the matter” (34 NY Jur, Libel and Slander, … Lastly, although not mentioned by the majority, I agree with the trial court that the causes of action asserted for the intentional infliction of emotional harm were not established by the plaintiffs.

People v. Ritter

28 A.D.2d 555 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 15, 1967

Y. 254 ) clearly distinguishable. The defendant in that ease put his hand into a woman’s coat pocket and found no money there. … That attempt to take money from the person of another certainly qualified as an attempted grand larceny in the second degree.

Wende C. v. United Methodist Church

6 A.D.3d 1047 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 30, 2004

In our view, far from “establish[ing] as a matter of law that the romantic attachment was mutual,” the evidence submitted by plaintiffs is sufficient to meet their burden of establishing their entitlement to judgment as a … The First Amendment does not grant religious organizations absolute immunity from tort liability . . .

Aviles v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

202 A.D.2d 45 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 18, 1994

It should be noted that, in finding a prohibited extraterritorial reach of the Labor Law, these decisions do not distinguish between provisions which require negligence to be established (eg., §§ 200, 241 [6]) and section … As the majority points out, a New Jersey resident injured in a fall must establish that his employer breached a duty of ordinary care to provide a reasonably safe workplace in order to recover in the New Jersey courts (see

Matter of Wegmans Food Mkts., Inc. v. Tax Appeals Trib. of The State of New York

155 A.D.3d 1352 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 22, 2017

The burden is on the taxpayer to establish that the determination being challenged clearly falls within the applicable exclusion (see Matter of 677 New Loudon Corp. v State of N.Y. … There is no dispute that the CPAs and written reports that RetailData provided to petitioner qualify as an information service, as their primary purpose is to disseminate information (see Matter of Towne-Oller & Assoc. v

People v. Crane

165 A.D. 449 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 31, 1914

That the statutory provision now under consideration is frankly and baldly discriminatory requires no argument to establish. … This was clearly pointed out by Mr. Justice Harlan, who wrote for the court in Atkin v. Kansas (supra).

People v. Parris

153 A.D.3d 68 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 28, 2017

The defendant clearly has a significant interest in his SORA classification and the ability to meaningfully participate in the SORA proceeding. … In establishing a defendant’s risk level pursuant to SORA, the People bear the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, the facts supporting the determinations sought (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; People

Uzzillia v. Commissioner of Health

47 A.D.2d 492 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 5, 1975

The respondent Commissioner of Health of the State of New York, after a consolidated hearing, revoked the petitioners’ operating certificates for their establishments. … The petitioners have been operating their establishments for periods ranging from 12 to 40 years.

Snyder v. Seaman

2 A.D. 258 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 15, 1896

'- These two words profits and • eairn'mgs were clearly used by the parties in these agreements as synonymous terms. … The evidence to which we have referred established the following facts: The plaintiff was in defendant’s employ from.' 1871 until the- first agreement was made May 1, 1885, and from about 1877 the plaintiff was paid for his

MatterofBoardofEducationoftheCentralIslipUnionFreeSchoolDistrictvSteiner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 30, 2014

For reasons not clearly revealed in the record, no such final cost reports were filed until June 2008. … Petitioners fall squarely within the ambit of this legislation, as their aid had been withheld because of the failure to file timely final cost reports, and the reports were later filed before the qualifying date of December

Cooper v. Lombard

64 A.D.2d 130 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 15, 1978

They are well qualified and have a professional and positive attitude toward prisoners. "The security procedures in this facility are good, but there is need for additional jail staff. … "Disciplinary procedures are clearly outlined, and careful attention is given to prisoners’ rights.

In re Shah

257 A.D.2d 275 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 6, 1999

The court determined that the AIP would, from the standpoint of his residence, qualify for Medicaid in New York. … However, the partial nature of the transfer of the assets in the John XX. case was clearly a response to the existence of the 36-month “look-back” period, that is, the period during which Medicaid benefits might be denied