Case law

Hager v. Mooney Aircraft, Inc.

63 A.D.2d 510 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 20, 1978

Support for this conclusion was advanced by the critical testimony of plaintiff’s highly qualified expert Joseph F. Ware, Jr. … The trial court was clearly justified in finding on this record that plaintiff’s proffered explanation of the cause of the crash fitted all the known facts as observed and testified to.

Ely v. Ely

163 A.D. 320 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 10, 1914

The learned judge says: ‘ * * * We think the cases in this State establish these two propositions: First. … Y. 35 ), but that case is clearly distinguishable. In that case there was no mention or disposition of any real estate and there was no power of sale conferred upon the executors.

Gallegos v. Elite Model Management Corp.

28 A.D.3d 50 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 29, 2005

The trial evidence established that plaintiff was recruited for employment at Elite by John Casablancas, its cofounder and majority shareholder. … Moreover, the trial evidence overwhelmingly established Pillard’s condonation and approval of the failure to accommodate plaintiffs disability.

Clark v. Dada

183 A.D. 253 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 1, 1918

Fuller, the payee named in the note in suit, was on January 25, 1917, by order of the county judge of Onondaga county, upon the certificate of two qualified medical examiners, adjudged insane and committed to the St. … It was quite unnecessary as proof to establish his cause of action and probably inadvertent, but he testified that Fuller, the payee, told him that the note was Mr. Dada’s.

Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. Goeke

151 A.D.3d 1237 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 8, 2017

The terms of the note and mortgage clearly prevent plaintiff's foreclosure if defendant is a "[b]orrower," because she continues to make the property her principal residence. … Defendant's ownership interest is significant because she was too young to qualify for a reverse mortgage.

Aspen Creek Estates, Ltd. v. Town of Brookhaven

47 A.D.3d 267 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 4, 2007

Clearly, the preservation of farmland confers a benefit upon the public, since it enables residents of the Town to enjoy locally grown produce and scenic views. … Finally, we conclude that Aspen Creek has failed to sustain its burden of establishing that the taking is excessive.

In re the Public Service Commission

157 A.D. 211 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 13, 1913

I qualified that by saying as approved to-day — as legalized. Q. … They are legalized and also under contract, and it is observed that he views with hostility a plan that would change what is so essentially established and what without further halting should be under way.

People v. Siciliano

52 A.D.2d 408 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 10, 1976

In order to obtain his release on federal habeas under these circumstances, [defendant] must not only establish the unconstitutional discrimination in selection of grand jurors, he must also establish that his attorney’s … guilt is validly established.”

Grimaldi v. Guinn

72 A.D.3d 37 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 9, 2010

This Court determined, inter alia, that the “defendants’ acts of faxing the executed contracts to New York and of making a few telephone calls do not qualify as purposeful acts constituting the transacting of business” {id … Defendants sought out plaintiff in New York and established an ongoing attorney-client relationship with him.

Mussara v. Mega Funworks, Inc.

100 A.D.3d 185 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 10, 2012

The injured plaintiff checked the warning sign to see if his son was tall enough to qualify for the ride, but did not read the rest of the warnings. … Further, he did not collide into another rider and was not injured by hitting a barrier clearly placed to keep riders from going too far in the splash pool.

MatterofPrevratil

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 24, 2014

themselves,2 1 Our courts have regularly recognized the importance of a testator's choice of executor, acknowledging that it "should be given great deference and not disregarded unless that executor is not legally qualified … Matter of Duke, 87 NY2d at 473 ["Removal of a fiduciary constitutes a judicial nullification of the testator's choice and may only be decreed when the grounds set forth in the relevant statutes have been clearly established

In re the Accounting of Syracuse Trust Co.

270 A.D. 712 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 20, 1946

Both qualified, Mrs. Wade as executrix and the trust company as executor and trustee. Letters testamentary were issued to them on April 7, 1930. … Scant as this record is — it does not even show the inventory and accounts — it seems fairly adequate to establish a basis for that decree.

People v. Scaringe

137 A.D.3d 1409 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 17, 2016

This time period is excludable, as defense counsel's consent was "clearly expressed" (People v Smith, 110 AD3d at 1143 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]); however, no such consent was shown as to any other adjournments … The People presented the testimony of a psychologist, qualified as an expert in the field of child and adolescent sexual abuse, who opined that children who are subjected to sexual abuse may wish to keep the abuse secret

People v. Aarons

305 A.D.2d 45 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 24, 2003

CPL 190.75 (1) provides that (1) where evidence before a grand jury “is not legally sufficient to establish” whether the *50 individual under investigation has committed a crime, or (2) where the panel “is not satisfied that … Clearly, the foreperson’s initiative in telling this to the prosecutor implied an openness to the introduction of further evidence.

Smith v. Burhyte

197 A.D. 725 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 7, 1921

dollar for a chicken; this probably accounts for one of the chicken dinners, and with mending, ten cents, probably the darning of the sweater sworn to by the husband; with milk from time to time, and other items, showing clearly … The trier has the right to insist that the justice and reasonableness of the claim shall be established by the most satisfactory evidence.

George Cohen Agency, Inc. v. Donald S. Perlman Agency, Inc.

69 A.D.2d 725 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 13, 1979

The logical relationship of the claims should determine, and the capacity of the one to negate the other is itself a factor establishing such a relationship.” … In this respect removal from State courts was clearly limited” (Port of New York Auth. v Eastern Air Lines, 259 F Supp 142, 144 ).

Strauss v. Belle Realty Co.

98 A.D.2d 424 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 27, 1983

Fault has already been established, by dint of Food Pageant v Consolidated Edison Co. ( 54 NY2d 167 , supra). … Perez (supra), a suit also stemming from the 1977 blackout, is clearly indistinguishable, as is Milizia (supra).

DEWINE, MARK H. v. STATE OF NEW YORK BOARD OF EXAMINER

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 30, 2011

jurisdiction and then relocates to New York, Correction Law § 168-k (1) provides that he or she “shall notify the division [of criminal justice services] of the new address no later than [10] calendar days after such sex offender establishes … As the court properly concluded and petitioner correctly concedes, however, the crimes of which petitioner was convicted in Wyoming qualify as sex offenses in New York under the “essential elements” provision of Correction

People v. Clermont

95 A.D.3d 1349 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 30, 2012

While a single error may qualify as ineffective assistance, it may only do so when the error is sufficiently egregious and prejudicial as to compromise a defendant’s right to a fair trial (see People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, … The Supreme Court stated that the defendant dropped the weapon before the chase began even though the People’s sole witness clearly testified that the defendant allegedly threw the weapon after a significant period of police

Harrison v. New York Central Railroad

255 A.D. 183 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 28, 1938

adverse user of railroad property than would be required to establish adverse user of property devoted solely to private purposes. … That this was the theory of the plaintiffs and of the court is clearly shown by the record.