Case law

Town of Mount Kisco v. State Board of Equalization & Assessment

101 A.D.2d 462 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 24, 1984

There is nothing in the record establishing or even suggesting that petitioners used the 1979 SBEA rates to any advantage whatsoever. … We see no reason why the SBEA should be afforded greater immunity from judicial review than other administrative decision makers.

People v. Wicks

42 N.Y.S. 630 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 16, 1896

The evidence very clearly indicates that the appellant, in effect, assured Mrs. … He was cross-examined upon the subject, and to some extent qualified his evidence given in chief.

Communications Leasing, Inc. v. Schoepflin

81 A.D.2d 627 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 20, 1981

That the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of permitted or legally established uses in the district wherein the proposed use is to be located or of permitted or legally established uses in adjacent use districts … Section 518 (“Rear Yard”) has none of the qualifying language found in section 513 (“Height”).

National Surety Corp. v. Lybrand

256 A.D. 226 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 3, 1939

On the contrary, his balance sheet clearly separates cash in banks and on hand and cash borrowed from *231 customers’ accounts. … We are, therefore, not prepared to admit that accountants are immune from the consequences of their negligence because those *236 who employ them have conducted their own business negligently.

Russell v. Raynes Associates Ltd.

166 A.D.2d 6 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 30, 1991

Here, the plan itself, while referring to estates, fails to clearly define their rights and appears deliberately to have left their status in a somewhat ambiguous position, particularly with respect to one in plaintiff’s … Indeed, if it is ultimately established that the conduct and representations of the sales agent were binding on the Sponsors, it could be found that an unconditional offer had been made to plaintiff which resulted in a binding

Payson v. Caputa

9 A.D.2d 226 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 17, 1959

In the absence of clearly indicated legislative intention, the court would have accepted, for the reasons already given, the narrower construction; but in administrative matters the administrative agency’s view of the statute … Thus, if no further evidence is available to support a contrary view, or if no further factor establishing a special circumstance can be related to the prior sale in this case, then the Rent Administrator is bound to grant

Board of Education of the Central Islip Union Free School District v. Steiner

121 A.D.3d 1463 · 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. … establish such circumstances for all but one of the projects (see 8 NYCRR 155.2 [e] [2]). .

In re the Probate of the Will of Morrison

270 A.D. 552 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 8, 1946

However, we are of the opinion that the proponent clearly established the testamentary capacity of Dr. Morrison. Dr. Morrison was about seventy-five years of age when he died on August 26, 1944. … All of these conditions are established here.

People v. Thompson

79 A.D.2d 87 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 2, 1981

Any other result, we think, would establish a rule wholly at odds with the peremptory challenge system as we know it.” … be entertained when “in case after case, whatever the circumstances, whatever the crime and whoever the defendant or the victim may be”, the prosecutor “is responsible for the removal of Negroes who have been selected as qualified

Chestnut v. United Methodist Church

2024 NY Slip Op 03726 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 10, 2024

[FN5] Critically, at the hearing, the Supreme Court only heard testimony from Caterson, who, although not qualified as an expert, testified about the nature of United Methodist Church based upon her many years as a member … Notably, the California Court of Appeal in Barr acknowledged that "[United Methodist Church] may be unique in that it has no single chief operating officer," but noted that "the clearly defined operating and conceptual levels

Acquista v. New York Life Insurance

285 A.D.2d 73 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 5, 2001

Militating against any causes of action based upon New York Life’s alleged bad faith in processing and denying plaintiffs claim is our finding that there are issues of fact as to whether plaintiffs ailments qualify him for … Such allegations are simply insufficient to “establish that the insurer’s conduct constituted a ‘gross disregard’ of the insured’s interests — that is, a deliberate or reckless failure to place on equal footing the interests

Gaglio v. Molnar-Gaglio

300 A.D.2d 934 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 26, 2002

. * Addressing the valuation of plaintiffs various business interests in the amount of $275,000, testimony by Richard Stone, a certified public accountant qualified as an expert in conducting business appraisals for litigation … reject any contention of double counting since the distributive award and the maintenance award stem from a variety of income sources as determined by defendant’s expert (see Grunfeld v Grunfeld, 94 NY2d 696, 705 ). *940 Clearly

People v. Brown

68 A.D.2d 503 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 18, 1979

of a situation occasioned or developed through no fault of the actor, and which is of such gravity that, according to ordinary standards of intelligence and morality, the desirability and urgency of avoiding such injury clearly … Gulielmetti can also testify, and I was going to ask that he be qualified as an expert witness, that he can also testify to the fact that there are numerous law suits going on at this time, challenging the conditions in the

People v. Kenyon

108 A.D.3d 933 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 18, 2013

Nor are we persuaded that the People failed to prove — beyond a reasonable doubt — that defendant qualified as a persistent felony offender within the meaning of Penal Law § 70.10 (1) (see CPL 400.20 [5]). … of conviction documenting defendant’s conviction of vehicular manslaughter in the second degree in 1991, driving while intoxicated as a felony in 1996 and attempted robbery in the first degree in 1997 were sufficient to establish

Board of Education of the Central Islip Union Free School District v. Steiner

121 A.D.3d 1463 · 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. … establish such circumstances for all but one of the projects (see 8 NYCRR 155.2 [e] [2]). .

Lascaris v. Wyman

38 A.D.2d 163 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 20, 1972

Clearly, however, unemployment compensation and welfare assistance serve different purposes. … it is not appropriate or wise for a social welfare agency to inquire into the legality of a strike, but suggests that the question of “ fault ” in work stoppage is best left to Federal and State Labor Boards especially qualified

Aronowitz v. Bernstein

76 A.D.2d 420 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 31, 1980

made to qualify for Medicaid. (18 NYCRR 360.8; Social Services Law, § 366, subd 1, par [e].) … To the contrary, during the course of the hearing, he made clear his understanding that the payments for home attendant services which petitioners had been making for well over a year clearly and indisputably established

Wylie v. Addoms

243 A.D. 744 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 15, 1935

It does not prescribe such prior payment as necessary to qualify one to make or enforce such a contract.” … The Legislature clearly intended, in enacting section 278 of the Tax Law, to bar recovery only in a case where the plaintiff was required to establish the transfer and to offer proof thereof in evidence.

Emanuel v. Sheridan Transportation Corp.

10 A.D.3d 46 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 4, 2004

To the extent that plaintiff does raise this claim, we find that she did not establish that Emanuel qualified as a seaman under the Jones Act. … Rather, “[i]t clearly applies to any independent contractor and its harborworker employees covered by the LHWCA and working aboard ship” (Hill v Texaco, Inc., 674 F2d 447, 451 [1982]). .

Holton v. Robinson

59 A.D. 45 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 15, 1901

Clearly not. Is the case presented in a different light because the defendant took advantage of an error on the part of the receiver in filing the order to make the payment ? We think not. … His authority to act- was thus fully established and his title to the property of the defendant was complete. (§ 2468.) In the time which intervened between ■ the making of the order and its proper filing, Elizabeth J.