Case law

Banc of America Securities LLC v. Solow Building Co. II, L.L.C.

47 A.D.3d 239 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 4, 2007

The amended complaint’s allegation of refusing to approve renovation plans in the attempt to extract a $6 million payment from BAS clearly implicates Solow’s bad faith nonperformance of its obligations under the lease (see … Enforcement of such a provision is precluded when “the misconduct for which it would grant immunity smacks of intentional wrongdoing” (Kalisch-Jarcho, 58 NY2d at 385 ; see also Sommer v Federal Signal Corp., 79 NY2d 540,

McNally v. 301 Madison Avenue Corp.

213 A.D. 616 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 6, 1925

. * * * The question of the character of the tenant would have to be considered and the fact he would have to occupy the premises himself, would have to qualify on the basis of his financial responsibility; * * * who was … Was it clearly explained that this was merely an offer which you received from them, to be considered? A. Yes.”

People v. Borcyk

125 N.Y.S.3d 517 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 12, 2020

A single error may qualify as ineffective assistance only if it is "sufficiently egregious and prejudicial as to compromise a defendant's right to a fair trial" ( People v Baker , 14 NY3d 266, 270 [2010] [internal quotation … In light of those clearly elucidated credibility determinations, we are unable to agree with the majority that the court did not appropriately weigh the evidence in denying defendant's motion.

People ex rel. Kelsey v. New York Postgraduate Medical School and Hospital

51 N.Y.S. 420 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 6, 1898

It rests entirely upon the circumstances attendant Upon the action of the board; in other words, upon inferences drawn from the facts established by the direct •evidence. … They either hold contract or honorary relations with the college; but which,nthe papers here do not clearly disclose.

Krolick v. Lowery

32 A.D.2d 317 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 26, 1969

/Unless the regulations of the department or the orders of the Fire Commissioner issued pursuant to the power vested in him, are so blatantly unfair, prejudicial to good order and discipline, without rational basis or clearly … The doctor’s testimony established that such grounds, in his opinion as a medical man, did exist. It is abundantly clear that Vyse’s refusal was purposeful and deliberate.

Ault v. Soutter

167 A.D.2d 38 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 16, 1991

In November of 1987, Soutter established defendant Ptarmigan of Delaware Corporation, a Delaware corporation, as a wholly owned subsidiary of Pelican and proposed a freezeout merger of Ptarmigan into Inverness pursuant to … the court therein explained that the only standing requirement for maintaining a derivative suit is that plaintiff be a stockholder of the corporation at the time of the transaction(s) in question and that he or she is qualified

Boggs v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

132 A.D.2d 340 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 18, 1987

Sabatini was qualified, as an expert, in adult psychiatry. On direct examination, Dr. Sabatini testified, in substance, as follows: in his opinion, Ms. … We find that the evidence presented in this case clearly and convincingly demonstrates Ms. Boggs’ past history of assaultive and aggressive behavior. Dr. Patel, another of Ms.

People v. Deacon

96 A.D.3d 965 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 20, 2012

The Supreme Court found, inter alia, that Brown’s testimony with respect to Watson’s alleged confession would not qualify as a statement against penal interest, as it was not established that Watson was unavailable, and there … The defendant did not establish entitlement to this relief.

People v. Barnes

106 A.D.3d 600 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 23, 2013

Mere losing tactics do not suffice to establish ineffective assistance (id. at 712). … However, “[w]here a single, substantial error by counsel so seriously compromises a defendant’s right to a fair trial, it will qualify as ineffective representation” (People v Hobot, 84 NY2d 1021, 1022 [1995]).

Dolcin Corp. v. Reader's Digest Ass'n

7 A.D.2d 449 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 17, 1959

On the trial defendant suggested, but not very clearly, that there were other and broader purposes for the introduction of this proof, and now, on the appeal, it also argues that the administrative determinations were some … assert the qualified privilege of fair comment.

County of Orange v. Ellsworth

98 A.D. 275 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 15, 1904

Matter of Livingston (supra), supported by the authorities last above cited, it was said, in determining the intention of the Legislature : “ Words absolute in themselves and language the most broad and comprehensive may be qualified … That it was the purpose of the Legislature, in enacting the Condemnation Law, to supplement all laws in reference to the taking of private property for public purposes is clearly evidenced by its language, for it is provided

Mercury Bay Boating Club Inc. v. San Diego Yacht Club

150 A.D.2d 82 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 19, 1989

San Diego’s defense in a catamaran, the court held, "clearly deviated from the intent of the donor”. … In fact, neither yacht qualifies for inclusion in any specified level class since both are of "unrestricted” or "unlimited” design.

James v. Libby, McNeil & Libby

103 A.D. 256 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 1, 1905

The agreement was that if a claim was made that the sausages contained too much fat, the defendant was to make good, which clearly meant that it would be responsible for any loss sustained by the vendee in consequence of … That evidence was controverted by the defendant, who endeavored to establish the fact that the sausages were properly manufactured, and did not have an excess of fat or moisture when delivered to the plaintiff’s assignor.

Steele v. Leopold

135 A.D. 247 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 30, 1909

It may be observed, however, that it would seem from the provisions of section 2591 of the *254 Code of Civil Procedure that- when the Surrogate’s Court obtains jurisdiction, as - it clearly did by the petition, to issue … American Loan & Trust Co., supra), but we are of opinion that the appellants satisfactorily bore that .burden, and established a defense, in part (Knapp v. Roche, 94 N.

Town of Johnsburg v. Town of Johnsburg Zoning Board of Appeals

299 A.D.2d 796 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 27, 2002

Wholly recognizing the conflicting testimony on this issue, no viable evidence challenged the February 23, 1987 letter from the Zoning Enforcement Officer which clearly advised Torrington that the intended use of the property … For these reasons, CBC sustained its initial burden of establishing a rational basis for the ZBA’s initial determination and thus demonstrated, without viable opposition, that the use was legally created (see Matter of Squire

People v. Forde

153 A.D.2d 466 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 20, 1990

Without a waiver of immunity, Mr. Berk testified three times before the Grand Jury, on January 9, 26, and June 29, 1987. … Indeed, threats can be made and clearly understood without verbal communication” (People v Court, 52 AD2d 891, 892 [1976], affd on mem of App Div 43 NY2d 817 [1977]).

People v. Clark

2019 NY Slip Op 3231 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 26, 2019

Although CPL 270.20 (1) (b) "does not require any particular expurgatory oath or talismanic' words . . . , [a prospective] juror[] must clearly express that any prior experiences or opinions that reveal the potential for … We agree with defendant that the court ultimately determined that the statement was inadmissible because it did not qualify as a declaration against penal interest and that the court failed to address the separate constitutional

Borrowe v. Corbin

31 A.D. 172 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 1, 1898

Corbin is his widow; that they are both legatees under the will, and that they, with the defendant Edgell, are the executors named in the will, and have qualified as such. … Div. 240 ); and the appeal must be determined as though all those facts had been established by the evidence.

Gosstol Realty Corp. v. Gillman

224 A.D. 63 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 25, 1928

Whether plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case at the close of its evidence, is not here material. … The grantees under this instrument clearly obtained good title to the strip now in dispute, the easterly line of which followed the westerly boundary of Third avenue as opened.

People v. Flechter

44 A.D. 199 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 15, 1899

It does not seem to be disputed that a qualified person may testify to handwriting. This witness was qualified. … the trial at which it came- into the case, but there was so much contradiction in the subsequent testimony concerning the origin of Exhibit 11 that it became of the utmost importance that the jury should be correctly and clearly