Case law

American Dental Cooperative, Inc. v. Attorney-General

127 A.D.2d 274 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 14, 1987

The services ADC has admitted performing on behalf of its New York members clearly constitute a significant aspect of the over-all services it provides. … The challenged interrogatories clearly seek to obtain information relevant to that investigation.

Files v. Ken Goewey Dodge, Inc.

33 A.D.3d 1109 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 19, 2006

The jury’s findings clearly addressed two discrete issues and were neither inconsistent nor against the weight of the evidence. … qualifying serious injury (see e.g.

People v. Paperno

77 A.D.2d 137 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 27, 1980

On November 30, and December 13 and 14, 1977, the defendant was called to testify before the Grand Jury under a grant of immunity. … The Grand Jury transcript was all that was needed to establish the objective meaning of the questions.

Prime v. City of Yonkers

131 A.D. 110 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 5, 1909

This rule, seems to be well established in this State ( Welle v. Celluloid Co., 186 N. Y. 319 ; Schutz v. Union Railway Co., 181 id. 33) and tested by it the questions were erroneous. … But examination of the record shows that there is not such absolute contradiction, but that the testiznony conin'a is either negative or is qualified, short of absolute contradiction.

People v. Almenteros

2023 NY Slip Op 01113 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 2, 2023

"In any event, while the sentence imposed was greater than that offered to defendant during plea negotiations, there is nothing in the record establishing that he was punished for asserting his right to trial or that the … However, it was later determined that defendant did not qualify as a second felony offender, such that the contemplated four-year sentence would not have been lawful ( see Penal Law § 70.70 [2] [a] [iii]).

In re the Probate of the Will of Schindhelm

11 A.D.2d 777 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 5, 1960

Petitioner has been appointed and has qualified as temporary administratrix. … The present facts are distinguishable from those in cases where it appeared clearly, before or after trial, that the Public Administrator would be entitled to letters of administration (ef.

National Psychological Ass'n for Psychoanalysis, Inc. v. Allen

14 A.D.2d 190 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 1, 1961

The major portion of plaintiffs’ affidavits, as well as their complaint, is devoted to the merits of NPAP’s training program, and why it should qualify as a ‘ substantial equivalent ’ of ‘ the specialized advanced courses … psychoanalytic point of view in psychology. ’ ’ Upon submission to the Commissioner, he refused to give his approval, stating with reference to the above-quoted language as follows: " It now appears that what is proposed is clearly

In re the Appraisal for Taxation under the Act in Relation to Taxable Transfers, of the Property of the Estate of Gould

19 A.D. 352 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 15, 1897

This was not a proceeding by the witness against the estate wherein he sought to establish his claim *355 against the estate. … ISTo rate of compensation was originally agreed upon, but'in 1892, before the-decedent’s death, such an agreement was clearly made, and both parties assented to it in the clearest terms.

Bates v. Toia

60 A.D.2d 459 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 29, 1977

The Appellate Division clearly passed on the validity of the regulations, contrary to the statement of the majority. … This clearly supports the legality of payments to the States participating in the program.

AHA Sales, Inc. v. Creative Bath Products, Inc.

58 A.D.3d 6 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 12, 2008

Where, as here, the Legislature clearly contemplated administrative enforcement of the statute,. … duty to the plaintiff, he did so in any capacity other than his capacity as a corporate officer. “ ‘[A] corporate officer who is charged with inducing the breach of a contract between the corporation and a third party is immune

Pace v. Ogden Services Corp.

258 A.D.2d 101 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 17, 1999

The record clearly shows, and the parties do not dispute, that plaintiff engaged in a protected activity and that Ogden was aware that she had done so. … complaint of harassment and her dismissal does not of itself support an *105 inference of retaliation (compare, Dortz v City of New York, supra, at 157), plaintiff also contends that her subordinate, a male who was less qualified

Feblot v. New York Times Co.

39 A.D.2d 227 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 20, 1972

It is clear from the record of this trial that the paper does not qualify as a record made and kept in the regular course of business, as contemplated by CPLR 4518 (subd. [a]). … Regina (19 N Y 2d 65) that, too, is clearly distinguishable.

Jerry v. Board of Education of the City School District

50 A.D.2d 149 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 12, 1975

The record reveals that the hearing officer carefully examined each child to test his competence, found him qualified, and administered the oath. … The Goss case is clearly distinguishable.

Samuels v. New York State Department of Health

29 A.D.3d 9 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 16, 2006

Courts use great caution when urged to recognize a new fundamental right or significantly expand an established one. … Loving implicated not only marriage, but did so with a barrier that was clearly subject to the highest level of scrutiny.

Clark v. National Shoe & Leather Bank

32 A.D. 316 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 1, 1898

Whatever its effect, and assuming that the plaintiff had notice of it, it was clearly modified by the notice attached to the slips of paid checks.' … It is further claimed that there was no competent' proof establishing the fact that the twenty-one checks were drawn and signed by the plaintiff for-.a less amount than that paid by the bank.

Haefelin v. McDonald

96 A.D. 213 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 15, 1904

This exception was established in .this State by Lawrence v. Fox ( 20 N. … ” The statement of this proposition decided by the court shows clearly that the decision is *228 not an authority for holding the defendant in this action.

Saperstein v. Ullman

63 N.Y.S. 626 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 21, 1900

He duly qualified and has ever since acted as such. For many years prior to and up to the time of her death, Amelia Ullman had conducted a clothing store in the city of Watertown, N. … We used *631 all the property of the estate to establish credit for the business. All our money was used in clothing business.”

People v. Palumbo

79 A.D.2d 518 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 4, 1980

It may, for cogent reasons, reverse or qualify a prior decision, even in the same case. But the cases in which this will be done are exceptional, and the power should be sparingly exercised. … Thus, our prior resolution of the issue of fair trial is clearly a legal determination, a ruling involving a question of law.

In re Baby Boy C.

27 A.D.3d 34 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 6, 2005

On April 13, 2004, Rita and Justin executed extrajudicial consents in Arizona to the termination of their parental rights and the adoption of the child by petitioners Jeffrey A. and Joshua A., who have been certified as qualified … by testimony of a qualified expert witness; and (3) the unavailability of suitable Indian families for placement (see 44 Fed Reg 67,584, 67,594, guideline F.3 [1979]).

Morgenthau ex rel. People v. Cooke

85 A.D.2d 463 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 30, 1982

Surely it cannot be seriously argued that the addition of the qualifying clause underlined above, “other than temporary hours, terms and parts,” was designed by the Chief Judge to withdraw from the Chief Administrator the … power to establish such temporary hours, terms and parts.