Case law

State v. Shawn X.

69 A.D.3d 165 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 22, 2009

While there is no dispute concerning Ewing’s qualifications, Berryman and Lazzaro were also qualified, and the jury was free to make its own credibility determinations and weigh the competing expert testimonies accordingly … Also, given that Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07 (c) states that “the issue of whether [respondent’s] offense was sexually motivated shall be determined by the jury,” here, the victim’s detailed account of the abuse was clearly

Smith v. City of Brooklyn

18 A.D. 340 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 1, 1897

This right is only qualified by the equal right of every adjoining landowner. … The state of the law in England would be clearly regarded as settled by the last decision, which was rendered in 1859, were it not for another decision rendered in 1871. (Grand *348 Junction Canal Co. v. Shugar, 6 Ch.

In re Brookfield

79 N.Y.S. 1022 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 9, 1903

Supp. 910 ), have adopted any erroneous theory in establishing the compensation for these rights at a purely nominal sum. … This is clearly an entirely improper basis of calculation.

Paulus v. Christopher Vacirca, Inc.

128 A.D.3d 116 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 8, 2015

The Court of Appeals recently examined what qualifies as a jurisdictional defect in Manhattan Telecom. Corp. v H & A Locksmith, Inc. ( 21 NY3d 200, 203 [2013]). … Since the appellant has failed to establish a basis to be relieved from his underlying default in failing to answer, that underlying default remains intact.

People v. Demagall

114 A.D.3d 189 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 9, 2014

Following the People’s undisputed establishment of the elements of second degree murder, the trial moved to defendant’s affirmative defense of insanity (see Penal Law § 40.15). … The jury was presented with the testimony of four well-qualified experts, who were extensively examined and cross-examined.

Werring v. Selig

241 A.D. 67 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 25, 1934

Said motion of the defendants, appellants, to the Court of Appeals was denied and the defendants were denied the right to establish the very claim which they seek to maintain in the present suit, namely, that they were induced … Schiff died on May 17, 1928, and that the defendants Selig, Zellenka and Golieb were named and qualified as executors of his will.

Mutual of America Life Insurance v. Tax Commission

68 A.D.3d 586 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 17, 2009

Testimony at trial established that this can be the cost of construction in rendering vacant raw space habitable by erecting drywall, installing ductwork and ceilings and floors. … For clearly stated reasons, the court selected either Mutual’s or the City’s value for each step of the appraisal — except that, sua sponte, it used market, not actual, rent to calculate the gross income from leased space

In re O'Brien

56 N.Y.S. 925 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 22, 1899

a last will and testament, which was duly admitted to probate by the surrogate’s court of Wayne county on the 5th day of August, 1895; that the petitioner, in and by said will, was named as sole executrix; that she duly qualified … Prac. 300 , one of the head-notes is as follows: “Where, however, the debt of the administrator thus established before the surrogate, or any part of it, is caused by the application of the moneys of the estate to the payment

In re Clover

8 A.D. 556 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 1, 1896

J., remarks that it was unnecessary to determine whether such an order has any effect to qualify the debtor’s own voluntary disposition of his chattels, for the reason that no such question was presented, and also because … This contention is clearly untenable, for it is neither supported by any authority, nor founded upon any legal or sensible reason.

Ecker v. Cottrell

24 A.D. 496 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 15, 1897

Cottrell died, leaving a last will and testament, wherein he appointed this defendant his executrix, who duly qualified as such, and was substituted as defendant herein. … In construing this contract the court should give effect to the legal relations of the parties, as defined and established by the terms employed by them in expressing their intention.

Matter of Williams v. Department of Corr. & Community Supervision

136 A.D.3d 147 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 12, 2016

The conviction for rape in the first degree, pursuant to Penal Law § 130.35, is a qualifying conviction under SARA (see Executive Law § 259-c [14]). … These are qualifying convictions under SARA. .

People ex rel. Jerome v. Court of General Sessions of the Peace

112 A.D. 424 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 20, 1906

‘When' the verdict is contrary to law or clearly against evidence; “ 7. … The affidavits upon which the motion was made did not make a case upon which within the established rule a new trial could be granted.”

People v. Mangarillo

152 A.D.3d 1061 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 27, 2017

Likewise, the plea allocution did not include admissions or particularity as to the acts committed that qualify as sexual contact or oral sexual conduct ( cf. … Inasmuch as the felony complaints clearly provide the factual basis to conclude that the acts to which defendant pleaded guilty were separate and distinct, we find that the consecutive sentences imposed upon — and agreed

McCarthy v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

16 A.D.2d 35 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 22, 1962

Involved in this appeal is the construction of article 17-A of the Insurance Law which established the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (hereinafter referred to as MVAIC). … The complicated society in which we live, and the ingenuity of the insurance companies, have made it possible to purchase immunity from many catastrophic contingencies unknown but a generation ago.

Pipoli v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

38 A.D.2d 249 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 15, 1972

The Judge in this nonjury trial is considered to be eminently qualified in judging the ‘‘ value ” of a negligence case. … to risk exposing the insured to a substantial recovery, which was clearly indicated should he be found liable, was a breach of duty owed to the assured.

People v. Western Express International, Inc.

85 A.D.3d 1 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 19, 2011

our view, however, the criminal operation created by Western Express, in which the individual defendants participated, had the requisite “ascertainable structure distinct from [its] pattern of criminal activity” so as to qualify … In these ways, Western Express not only failed to combat money laundering and detect suspicious or clearly illegal activity, it actively encouraged, assisted and participated in those activities.

General Aniline & Film Corp. v. A. Schrader & Son, Inc.

13 A.D.2d 359 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 1, 1961

Equally unreasonable seems the inference which would necessarily follow—that by its silence the Legislature intended a gratuitous grant of immunity which it then tacitly bestowed upon wrongdoers in the field of contractual … The authorities cited by appellant to sustain its contention that remedy for breach of warranty is inferentially excluded seem to us clearly distinguishable. Principal among these is United States Cas. Co. v.

In re Leslie K.

132 A.D.2d 149 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 30, 1987

Inasmuch as the act amending Family Court Act § 1046 (a) (vi) was specifically intended to "apply to all actions and proceedings pending or commenced on or after” its effective date of August 1, 1985 (L 1985, ch 724, § 2), it clearly … "A Validation’ offering is simply expert testimony given by a witness who, after being duly qualified by the court in the area of intrafamilial child sexual abuse, provided [sic] the court, like any other expert in a particular

Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind

309 A.D.2d 546 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 9, 2003

A plaintiff claiming employment discrimination must demonstrate: (1) membership in a protected class; (2) that she was qualified to hold the position; (3) termination from employment or other adverse employment action; and … In other words, the defendant can establish a right to summary judgment if it demonstrates that plaintiff lacks evidence establishing each element of the claim, or establishes, without proof to the contrary, that the complained-of

Sheridan v. Long Island Railroad

40 A.D. 381 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 15, 1899

If the evidence justified this conclusion the defendant’s negligence was established. … Although there is similarity in the language employed, the distinction lies in the fact that upon the former trial it was in no way qualified after the court’s attention had been called to it, and it, therefore, tended to