Case law

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

Lend Lease (US) Construction LMB Inc. v. Zurich American Insurance

136 A.D.3d 52 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 22, 2015

An insured bears the burden of establishing the existence of coverage (see Platek v Town of Hamburg, 24 NY3d 688, 694 [2015]). … Thus, the clearly worded contractor’s tools, machinery, plant and equipment exclusion must be enforced as written to bar coverage under the particular facts of this case.

Butler v. Gazette Co.

119 A.D. 767 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 8, 1907

Caverly was on ‘August 10*1903, a duly appointed and qualified justice of the peace and police magistrate'in the city of Chicago, and was sitting as such ■ in the Harrison street' police, station, and had jurisdiction of … A verdict for any amount for the plaintiff of necessity determines ' .the falsity of the article as applied to the plaintiff, and clearly vindicates her reputation.

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

People v. Spinello

277 A.D.2d 712 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 13, 1951

Upon the foregoing evidence the People contend that they established the guilt of appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. … The guilt of the appellant of this serious crime in our opinion was clearly established. The judgment of conviction should accordingly be affirmed.

Beck v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co.

218 A.D.2d 1 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 28, 1995

Indeed, far from contemplating any benefit to third parties, the Agreement quite clearly limits the benefits accorded thereunder to those assenting to its terms. … In this context, it was plain that the collateral would be purchased, if at all, at the upset price established by the Trustee.

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]). .

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.

Grace v. Town of North Hempstead

166 A.D. 844 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 26, 1915

It is said that this Hempstead court was the first town court established in New Netherland. (Laws of New Nether-land, preface, p. ix.) … Thus the power to grant what is clearly given by this colonial charter is for the first time questioned.

Paul v. Staten Island Edison Corp.

2 A.D.2d 311 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 18, 1956

An owner should not gain immunity “ where the dangers are obscure to the worker ” but are known to the owner (Caspersen v. La Sala Bros., 253 N. … Clearly, wide disparity exists between the fair inferences drawn by the minority and the most favorable inferences drawn by the majority.

In re Montgomery

126 A.D. 72 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 15, 1908

It shall be lawful for any stenographer duly appointed and qualified as hereinbefore provided, to attend and be present at the session of every grand jury impaneled in the county in which he is appointed, and it shall be … As said in the Sexton case: “ Whenever it clearly appears, therefore, that the legal evidence received by a grand jury is insufficient to support an indictment, or that illegal evidence is the sole basis for an indictment

Robinson v. Columbia Spinning Co.

31 A.D. 238 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 1, 1898

The sheriff testified that he agreed to pay North $700 before he moved the goods; and again, that he agreed to pay the $700 that was due ; but on cross-examination he qualified this by saying that North told him that he had … For the purpose of establishing the lien, therefore, it was necessary for the bank to show that the sheriff took this property hito his actual possession or custody.

Jenack v. Goshen Operations, LLC

2023 NY Slip Op 05495 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 1, 2023

The defendants argue that the plaintiffs have not met their evidentiary burden for class action certification because their expert was not qualified to opine on the issues, their witness affidavits lack probative value, and … Accordingly, questions regarding the defendants' alleged violations of federal and/or state law clearly predominate here, satisfying the commonality requirement of CPLR 901(a)(2) ( see Fleming v Barnwell Nursing Home & Health

Wyckoff v. Woarms

118 A.D. 699 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 5, 1907

The plaintiff’s right to recover in this action for extra work must depend, there* fore, on whether he has complied with these conditions or established by proof a legal excuse for his failure to do so. … The evidence clearly discloses that the plaintiff knew neither more nor less of Mr.

Bennett v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co.

49 N.Y.S. 833 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 15, 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 24 hours.” … The jury, under this evidence, might properly infer that the plaintiffs had established the fact required by the charge of the court.

Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v. Servotronics, Inc.

132 A.D.2d 392 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 18, 1987

Each of the six documents in issue here is a memorandum containing legal advice from plaintiff’s counsel to bank employees and officers and constitutes attorney work product immune from disclosure (Geffers v Canisteo Cent … There is no evidence that the bank intended to disclose the documents; on the contrary, the record clearly establishes that the bank intended to keep the disclosed documents confidential.

Sullivan v. J.V. McNicholas Transfer Co.

93 A.D.2d 527 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 25, 1983

We hold that the defendant here has not clearly established that the action has no substantial nexus with New York or that New York is an inconvenient forum and that Ohio would better serve the ends of justice and convenience … Nor has defendant clearly demonstrated that Ohio would “best serve the ends of justice and convenience of the parties” (Bader & Bader v Ford, supra, p 645).

Rathbone v. Wirth

6 A.D. 277 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 1, 1896

expressed or necessarily implied purpose, is as clearly void as if in express terms forbidden. … And it is now the law of this land that no man can, “ for opinion’s sake,” be excluded from any political office, or prevented from enjoying any of the rights, privileges' or immunities that any other citizen is permitted

City of New York v. Fifth Avenue Coach Co.

237 A.D. 383 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 17, 1933

No opportunity is afforded for any other corporation to qualify for the benefits of the act if subsequently incorporated under any amendment of then existing law. … This language has clearly nothing to do with rates of fare to be charged on any existing route or extension.

National Protective Ass'n of Steam Fitters & Helpers v. Cumming

53 A.D. 227 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 1, 1900

employers, to coerce other workingmen to become members of the organization and to come under its rules and conditions, under the penalty of the loss of their position, and of deprivation of employment, then that purpose seems clearly … The association had established a standard of skill in the trade to which its members belonged. Each applicant for membership was required to pass an examination to show that he was qualified as a mechanic.