Case law

Hirson v. United Stores Corp.

263 A.D. 646 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 10, 1942

Having qualified as receiver, plaintiff brought this action for an accounting against United Stores Corporation, the majority stockholder of Tobacco Products Corporation of Delaware, and against the directors of the latter … The domestic receiver, under section 977-b, was clearly entitled to proceed under such circumstances.

Kineon v. Bonsall

194 A.D. 110 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 17, 1920

At the Trial Term she succeeded by the verdict of a jury in establishing her claim and recovered a judgment for upwards of $11,000. … Originally the stock of all belonged, at least nominally, to him, excepting a share to each of several employees to qualify to act as directors.

Sullivan v. Hoberman

34 A.D.2d 6 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 26, 1970

The nettle of this distinction was clearly grasped by Mr. Justice Pittoni in the recent case of Brooks v. … and are designed to secure a reserve of qualified personnel which may be called upon in time of need.

Consolidated Edison Co. v. New York State Division of Human Rights

160 A.D.2d 508 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 19, 1990

The issue here is not whether the complainant was more qualified than a person promoted to a supervisory position in the Calendar Unit in May 1983. … Based upon this record the Division concluded: "The practice of promoting white males in available supervision positions in the Calendar Unit has been clearly established.

Lauer v. Raymond

190 A.D. 319 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 16, 1920

The mere presence of allegations in the complaint, which, if established by the evidence, would have supported a recovery of damages for fraud, does not change an action to recover moneys paid on contract after rescission … Again, where it is a part of the consideration for the purchase of stock in a corporation that the purchaser, as soon as qualified, shall be appointed treasurer and business manager of the company, and this agreement is not

Kuriansky v. Bed-Stuy Health Care Corp.

135 A.D.2d 160 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 16, 1988

However, the right to counsel of choice is qualified and can be outweighed by countervailing governmental interests (see, e.g., United States v Paone, 782 F2d 386, 392 [2d Cir 1986], cert denied — US —, 107 S Ct 3261 [1987 … Contrary to the defendants’ assertions, this case " 'does not smack of an invalid attempt by the State to compel testimony *178 without granting immunity or to penalize the exercise of the privilege’ ” (Baxter v Palmigiano

Lindsey v. Board of Education

72 A.D.2d 185 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 24, 1980

There are circumstances in which a teacher may waive her statutory tenure rights (see Matter of Abramovich v Board of Educ., 46 NY2d 450 , cert den 444 US 845 ), and clearly a teacher’s knowledge that her employers consider … But since the duty of establishing teacher tenure is fixed by statute and rests ultimately with the Board of Education, and since probationary teachers suffer from a position of relative insecurity, courts should be slow

National Surety Co. v. Seaich

171 A.D. 414 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 18, 1916

On the contrary, upon the face of the paper and without any testimony to qualify or explain it, it was the joint and several obligation of the six signers. … It was held that the obligation of the defendants Van Slyck and Garner was clearly a joint and several one.

Slapo v. Winthrop Univ. Hosp.

186 A.D.3d 1281 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 2, 2020

, as an expert for the purpose of establishing the generally accepted medical practice in the community" ( McDermott v Manhattan Eye, Ear & Throat Hosp. , 15 NY2d 20, 29-30 ). … Here, the transcript of Brem's deposition clearly states "EXAMINATION BEFORE TRIAL of WINTHROP UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, one of the Defendants herein, by DR.

Peoples Savings Bank v. County Dollar Corp.

43 A.D.2d 327 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 14, 1974

On May 7,1973 Special Term handed down its decision upholding the plaintiff’s complaint and temporarily enjoining Seamen’s from establishing a savings bank in the shopping center. … Clearly, therefore, the covenant under review, limited as it is to the lessor’s holdings in a small area, is a reasonable restriction.

School Board v. Board of Education

34 A.D. 49 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 1, 1898

And that the Legislature intended to establish the new system-complete on and after July 1, 1898, the language of the Greater' -Hew York charter leaves little room for doubt. … Indeed, it is seldom that the legislative intent' as to the time when a statutory change shall take effect is so clearly and unequivocally manifested as it is in this case. “ The board of estimate and apportionment shall,

Hudson v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.

138 A.D.3d 511 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 14, 2016

Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, a plaintiff asserting a claim of employment discrimination bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case, by showing that she is a member of a protected class, she was … qualified to hold the position, and that she suffered adverse employment action under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination (id. at 113).

In re Ranftle

108 A.D.3d 437 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 2, 2013

To qualify as a Florida resident for tax purposes, Ranftle kept diaries to show he spent 183 days, or more than one half a year, in the state for each year from 2003 through 2007. … In this case, both decedent’s and his attorney’s actions clearly conflict with her statement.

Sullivan v. New York State Joint Commn. on Pub. Ethics

2022 NY Slip Op 03553 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 2, 2022

Even if true, Supreme Court aptly noted that the Lobbying Act applies only when qualified compensation or expenditures reach $5,000. … Footnote 3: This conclusion does not mean that the application of the statute by JCOPE is immune from constitutional challenge.

Sullivan v. New York State Joint Commn. on Pub. Ethics

2022 NY Slip Op 03553 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 2, 2022

Even if true, Supreme Court aptly noted that the Lobbying Act applies only when qualified compensation or expenditures reach $5,000. … Footnote 3: This conclusion does not mean that the application of the statute by JCOPE is immune from constitutional challenge.

People v. Williams

142 A.D.2d 310 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 30, 1988

Thus, '[t]o qualify for admission into evidence as a declaration against the maker’s penal interest the following elements must be present: first, the declarant must be unavailable as a witness at trial; second, when the … Supportive evidence is sufficient if it establishes a reasonable possibility that the statement might be true.

David v. 3 West 16th Street, LLC

89 A.D.3d 24 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 29, 2011

To qualify for such an exchange, the entity that acquired the interest in the building had to be owned and controlled by the taxpayer, Mr. Braha. Therefore, Mr. … However, the plain language of article 9.5 clearly excuses the landlord’s cooperation in executing documents or taking action where “such action would broaden his obligations hereunder.”

Owens v. Chamorro

114 A.D.3d 1037 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 20, 2014

The determination of whether to grant a request for an adjournment is entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court, and it will not be disturbed unless that discretion is clearly abused (see Matter of Steven B., 6 … She expressed qualified willingness for him to visit the children at her residence, but also stated that she was “not sure” if this was advisable because of her concern that forced contact with a person who the children did

Hyatt v. California Franchise Tax Board

105 A.D.3d 186 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 13, 2013

Thus, the subject subpoenas were issued under authority of a court of record of a state other than New York and, thus, qualify as out-of-state subpoenas under CPLR 3119. … However, a demand seeking such a communication on that basis would be clearly overbroad.

Nicholson v. State Commission

72 A.D.2d 48 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 18, 1979

Moreover, it must be recognized that, personalities and issues aside, this candidate for Surrogate was running in opposition to the established political organization. The Committee for Modern Courts, Hon. … "The * * * system is neither democratic nor is it capable of placing the best qualified people in our state courts.” (N. Y. Times, Dec. 5, 1979, p B4, col 3, quoting Robert MacCrate.)