Case law

Cross Properties, Inc. v. Brook Realty Co.

37 A.D.2d 193 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 6, 1971

Thus, the sale here would not be of all or substantially all its (Dollar Canada’s) assets and clearly could not be viewed as such by Dollar England, which owns about 90% of Dollar Canada. … Where the issue is one of misuse, as in the case at bar, in order to set aside the contract the evidence must establish that the third party had knowledge of the fraud on the shareholders (Bissell v.

People v. Rosano

69 A.D.2d 643 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 6, 1979

This testimony, plus the earlier cross-examination of the mortgage officer, was wholly insufficient to raise the defense of repayment because, giving it every favorable intendment, it neither established, nor tended to establish … Since the statute so clearly requires record keeping, it would appear that there is at least a rational connection between a failure to comply and the presumed fact of diversion.

Zelnik v. Zelnik

169 A.D.2d 317 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 25, 1991

Ryan v Ryan ( 123 AD2d 679 ), relied upon by the wife, is clearly distinguishable. … Thus, the agreement qualifies as an "agreement of separation” and complies with the statutory requirement for a divorce under section 170 (6).

Woolley v. Stewart

169 A.D. 678 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 1, 1915

The principle involved is presented fully and clearly in McKinley v. Hessen ( 135 App. *681 Div. 832 ). … But with full knowledge of the facts, whatever they were, he established the will in its entirety and accepted the trust without possible reservation.

People v. Marshall

106 A.D.3d 1 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 26, 2013

The court held that Marshall had not established any “compelling factor, consideration or circumstance clearly demonstrating that conviction or prosecution [on this count] would constitute or result in [an] injustice.” … We are not convinced that as an aged felon Marshall should be categorically immune from incarceration and it is generally inappropriate to use the interest of justice as a device for granting dispensations from mandatory

James v. Alpha Painting & Constr. Co., Inc.

152 A.D.3d 447 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 18, 2017

Defendants established prima facie that they had only general supervisory authority over plaintiffs' work, which is insufficient to establish liability under Labor Law § 200 or common-law principles ( see Hughes v Tishman … The two vehicles are clearly distinguishable.

Auquilla v. Villa

2025 NY Slip Op 02053 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 9, 2025

Here, the owners established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the cause of action to cancel and discharge of record the mortgage pursuant to RPAPL 1501(4), since the record reveals, and the … A determination as to whether a mortgagee qualifies as a mortgagee in possession for purposes of tolling the statute of limitations "requires an analysis of whether the mortgagee took full possession of the property pursuant

Martin A. v. Gross

194 A.D.2d 195 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 23, 1993

The record demonstrates that the HRA Child Fatality Review Panel was established sometime in 1985. … Section 422 of the Social Services Law establishes the State-wide central register of child abuse and maltreatment reports.

Ensign v. Travelers Insurance

193 A.D. 369 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 8, 1920

She may establish such identity by any other evidence at her disposal, but it is very clear that if the accidental origin of the fire has been established to the satisfaction of the jury it disposes of .the defense herein … A qualified witness may express an opinion in respect to the particular matter under investigation but he cannot on direct examination give specific instances.

Lightman v. Flaum

278 A.D.2d 373 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 18, 2000

Clearly no such conclusion is borne out by the record. … Thus, since Langford does not immunize the clergy from liability for intentional torts, it has no bearing on the defendant rabbis’ alleged intentional acts in this case.

In re the Assignment of Whitney

144 A.D. 117 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 21, 1911

is sufficient for that purpose, all the debts and liabilities now due or to grow due from the said copartnership of Whitney '& Kitchen and from the aforesaid party of the first *119 part * * Thereafter the assignee duly qualified … The language of the opinion shows clearly, however, that had the lessor not re-entered and relet the premises he could have proved his claim for rent “to grow due” under the lease after the assignment. In People v. St.

Bregman v. 111 Tenants Corp.

97 A.D.3d 75 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 3, 2012

Here, in contrast, plaintiffs assertions are insufficient to establish that she is the only shareholder whom the newly adopted rule affects. … Notably, it is not purely a question of law that clearly appears on the face of the record, unavoidable by respondent if raised; rather, had it been timely raised, defendant could have submitted evidence seeking to disprove

Herbert Rosenthal Jewelry Corp. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance

21 A.D.2d 160 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 30, 1964

That principal, in reality, belongs to the insurer, and in that sense adheres to it, unless clearly, and that means intentionally, contracted away. … Finding the literal meaning of the words unreasonable, the *167 court, per Fttld, J., said: “ Study of those decisions establishes only that the phrase can have no absolute or inalterable signification and that it takes on

Cohen v. Herbal Concepts, Inc.

100 A.D.2d 175 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 8, 1984

Cohen’s statement is competent and does have probative value since he is clearly a person with knowledge of the facts (CPLR 3212, subd [b]). … Clearly, the gravamen of the cause of action is invasion of privacy, which right is limited in this State to the statutory protection afforded by the Civil Rights Law.

People v. Woodward

66 A.D.2d 866 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 26, 1978

The evidence against Freeman and Glenn (the immunized defendant) was particularly strong. … In coming to that conclusion he was clearly in error.

People v. Murray

189 A.D.3d 688 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 29, 2020

However, we did not define or qualify "de minimus," and we further stated this as dicta. … Here, the record establishes that the victim sustained "substantial pain" as a result of the assault.

People v. Williams

2025 NY Slip Op 04526 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 31, 2025

Whether intervening probable cause attenuated an unlawful arrest is a "clearly separate and analytically distinct" issue from whether probable cause existed in the first instance and does not "involv[e] a single multipronged … remaining evidence — namely, the surveillance videos showing the suspect in the area before and after the attack and Detective Hostetter's "confirmatory" identification of defendant at the shelter — is not sufficient to establish

Matter of Migliaccio v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal

2018 NY Slip Op 3132 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 2, 2018

of time to qualify for succession rights. … Moreover, my colleagues' assertion that unique or peculiar circumstances resulted in a maximum rent of $125 which "is clearly substantially lower than rents generally prevailing in the same area for substantially similar

Cunningham v. Shea

111 A.D. 624 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 7, 1906

We think an examination of the rules offered, which are contained in the record, clearly shows that they had no relevancy to any issue involved in this case. … We think it will not do for the defendants to say that upon their ex $>arte statement and without hearing the plaintiff, the keeper ratified their action and that now they may claim immunity from the consequences of their

Suppiah v. Kalish

76 A.D.2d 829 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 7, 2010

Whether plaintiffs employment separation with WFI was caused by self-abandonment or benching, there was clearly a 16-month break in his employment resulting in revocation of his visa and precluding visa renewal. … Here, the court is uniquely qualified and able to assess the adequacy of the legal services rendered, and requires no expert guidance.