Case law

Gruen v. Gruen

104 A.D.2d 171 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 3, 1984

However, we find this factor to be of marginal significance, especially in view of the fact that an explanation was offered at trial by the donor’s accountant, i.e., that it was felt that the painting would qualify as a tax … Its omission from the marital affidavits clearly admits of other, more reasonable inferences than that the gift had been rejected 10 years earlier when it was proffered.

Marino v. Weprin

192 A.D.2d 174 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 8, 1993

Clearly, it was this fact and the corollary fact that the meeting obligation was joint *179 and several from which flowed the conclusion that either house could convene it, ostensibly as a means of discharging its legal duty … Indeed, inasmuch as there is no qualifying language in Public Officers Law § 41 similar to that contained in Education Law § 202 (1), it seems evident that the obligation to act under the former arises immediately upon the

Stancarone v. DiNapoli

2018 NY Slip Op 2844 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 26, 2018

Recently, the Court of Appeals reaffirmed that standard, stating that, to establish their entitlement to accidental disability retirement benefits, petitioners must "demonstrate that their injuries were caused by sudden, … We acknowledge that the standard to qualify for accidental disability retirement benefits has not always been clearly stated, with part of the confusion stemming from the use of imprecise and differing language in prior cases

Isquith v. Isquith

229 A.D. 555 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 22, 1930

The defendant cor-portion was accordingly formed, and all of its stock, excepting a few shares to qualify directors, was issued to the husband. … She naturally trusted him and was willing to follow his suggestion that *562 her interests be made immune from the claims of creditors of the husband, of whom, as stated, there were none, or at least none were proven.

People v. Martin

8 A.D.3d 883 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 24, 2004

To establish that exception, the proponent must satisfy the court that the declarant is unavailable to testify, the declarant was aware at the time the statement was made that it was contrary to his or her penal interest, … A statement which is largely exculpatory and meant to minimize the declarant’s involvement in a crime is not clearly opposed to his or her penal interest and does not qualify for admission (see People v Raife, 250 AD2d 864

Matter of James M. McDonald III Trust (JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.)

2026 NY Slip Op 03481 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 4, 2026

Petitioner's proof does not establish that it did so. … Petitioner's proof, however, does not clearly show that the subject trust or the father fit those descriptions.

Golden Gate Yacht Club v. Société Nautique de Genève

55 A.D.3d 26 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 29, 2008

Clearly, the lynchpin on which this appeal turns is the interpretation to be afforded the phrase “having for its annual regatta” as it is used in the Deed. … SNG maintains that additional qualified yacht clubs have signed on to the Protocol since the summary judgment motions were filed in Supreme Court. .

Knox v. City of New York

79 N.Y.S. 985 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 16, 1903

The court then instructed the jury that the burden of establishing the defense of waiver was upon the city, and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover unless the defendant had satisfied them “by a preponderance of credible … The plaintiff’s own testimony clearly indicates that he rendered these services without any intention of charging the city therefor.

Borg-Warner Corp. v. Insurance Co. of North America

174 A.D.2d 24 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 9, 1992

The record demonstrates that the discharges alleged in the underlying proceedings occurred over long periods of time and do not even remotely qualify as sudden. … Plaintiff argues that Supreme Court misconstrued the term accidental in the INA policies and claims that any unintended or unexpected damage qualifies as an accident.

Matter of Kai G. (Amanda G.)

153 N.Y.S.3d 207 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 12, 2021

Further, as the father's grossly inappropriate conduct toward the oldest child clearly demonstrates that his parental judgment is so profoundly impaired and fundamentally flawed as to create a substantial risk of harm to … Footnote 4: Family Court found that the mother did not have "the requisite relationship" with the youngest child or act as a caretaker for the youngest child so as to qualify as a person legally responsible for his care (

Vanderbilt v. Vanderbilt

1 A.D.2d 3 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 20, 1955

This is so despite the fact that more time was required to elapse before she could qualify to bring a matrimonial action. … Clearly, before maintenance may be ordered under section 1170-b, a wife must establish all the elements of one of the standard matrimonial causes of action.

Plovnick v. Klinger

10 A.D.3d 84 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 30, 2004

The Family Court Act also authorizes the Appellate Divisions of the Supreme Court to designate a panel of qualified attorneys to provide law guardian services (see Family Court Act § 243 [c]). … Where such a panel is established, as is the case in this judicial department, Family Court Act § 245 (c) provides that “law guardians shall be compensated and allowed expenses and disbursements in the same amounts established

In re Brush

25 A.D. 610 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 15, 1898

Brush, .in which she makes' the petitioner say positively that she-never was married to Brush, but subsequently she qualifies that statement by saying that Mrs.. … The books presented show clearly that this Mary Whitehead was in that institution from January, 1876, until September, 1876, and there was no reasonable question but that this petitioner was the same woman.

LaDuke v. Lyons

250 A.D.2d 969 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 14, 1998

Clearly, the hospital’s alleged conduct was “too closely related to the wrongful termination alleged to stand as a distinct cause of action” (Brooks v Blue Cross, 190 AD2d 894, 895 , supra). … We have reviewed defendants’ remaining contention regarding qualified privilege and find it to be unpreserved for appellate review. Mercure, J. P., White, Peters and Carpinello, JJ., concur.

State v. Rutkowski

58 A.D.2d 14 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 9, 1977

This record establishes without any serious dispute that at least five lots were sold by the sellers upon which residences were thereafter built. … The definition requires such a restriction in order to qualify as a subdivision and given such an interpretation it is not vague and not unconstitutional.

Edge Management Consulting, Inc. v. Blank

25 A.D.3d 364 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 10, 2006

In addition, the Blank Trust contends that even if common-law indemnification was only available to parties whose vicarious liability is derived from statute, it would nevertheless qualify. … Strictly construed, the agreement clearly provides indemnification to the Blank Trust.

Caren EE. v. Alan EE.

124 A.D.3d 1102 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 22, 2015

Here, the language of the parties' agreement pertaining to mutual management of the son's affairs clearly  -3- 517860 reveals that the parties intended it to survive the judgment … Notably, none of these definitions includes qualifying words such as "primarily" or "solely" that would narrow the meaning of the phrase as the wife contends, nor does any such limiting language appear in the disputed provision

Greco v. International Hodcarriers, Building & Common Laborers' Union Local 17 Pension Fund

201 A.D.2d 65 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 30, 1994

In 1965, the International Hodcarriers, Building and Common Laborers’ Union (hereinafter the Union), of which plaintiff Peter Greco (hereinafter Greco) was a member, established defendant, a pension fund created for the purpose … Thus, if Greco was not vested as of June 1974, then he clearly would have suffered a break in service under the plan then in effect, and consequently forfeited his prior credits, on September 30, 1976.

Joseph v. Corsi

277 A.D.2d 351 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 18, 1950

While it is no more expressly answered elsewhere, the like implication is quite clearly given by other applicable provisions of law, to wit, sections 4 and 42 of the Public Officers Law. … as contemplating the assumption of the office by the electee forthwith upon his election and proper qualification. *354 The argument in behalf of the Acting Mayor places considerable emphasis upon what is termed the long-established

People v. Rao

73 A.D.2d 88 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 25, 1980

Each of the three defendants testified before the Special Grand Jury under the waiver of immunity. The undercover *93 agent, Wilkowski (Vitale), and Mrs. Errico also testified. … Errico execute a waiver of immunity prior to her testifying before that Grand Jury.