Case law

Akpan v. Koch

152 A.D.2d 113 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 21, 1989

Nor did the various qualifiers cited by the consultants provide much basis for comfort. … Clearly UDC failed to take a 'hard look’ at the problems and adverse potential effects of the project on traffic stoppage, parking, air pollution or noise level damage.

Campbell v. Thomas

73 A.D.3d 103 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 16, 2010

NY County 2006]), this problem has begun to receive increasing attention. 2 New York, however, does not yet have a statute specifically addressing a situation in which a person takes unfair advantage of an individual who clearly … The record that was before the Supreme Court in this matter establishes that Nidia was aware of this lack of capacity.

People v. Ellis

2018 NY Slip Op 8143 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 28, 2018

"While the right to counsel of choice is qualified, and may cede, under certain circumstances, to concerns of the efficient administration of the criminal justice system, [the Court of Appeals has] made clear that courts … distinguishable from People v Then ( 28 NY3d 1170 ), where the defendant's orange correctional pants were purposefully hidden from the jury during a short span of time, and where the black knitted top worn by the defendant was clearly

Powers v. St. John's University School of Law

110 A.D.3d 888 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 16, 2013

However, the decisions of educators are not completely immune from judicial scrutiny, and courts “will intervene if an institution exercises its discretion in an arbitrary or irrational fashion” (Matter of Olsson v Board … Since the application for *896 admission asked whether Powers had “ever been charged with . . . any crime, offense, or violation,” and since Powers’s response did not clearly indicate that he had been charged with distribution

Powers v. St. John's University School of Law

110 A.D.3d 888 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 16, 2013

However, the decisions of educators are not completely immune from judicial scrutiny, and courts “will intervene if an institution exercises its discretion in an arbitrary or irrational fashion” (Matter of Olsson v Board … Since the application for *896 admission asked whether Powers had “ever been charged with . . . any crime, offense, or violation,” and since Powers’s response did not clearly indicate that he had been charged with distribution

Board of Education of Half Hollow Hills Central School District v. Roseman

52 A.D.2d 854 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 10, 1976

Justice McCarthy and against whom the case was therefore dismissed, and who testified under a grant of immunity, has been largely summarized above. … The foregoing clearly does not sustain Special Term’s finding that the union’s Executive Board had been advised by their prior attorney of Mr. Justice Aspland’s admonition to stop the strike.

Cheeks v. City of New York

123 A.D.3d 532 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 16, 2014

The issue, therefore, is whether plaintiff later opened the door through improper questioning, which she clearly did not. … alleged defect," not for the map's truth, and the plaintiffs therefore were not required to establish that the map qualified as a business record]).

Paparella v. Paparella

74 A.D.2d 106 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 8, 1980

Plaintiff alleged in response that she had never had an intention to abandon New York as her domicile or to establish a domicile anywhere else. … Clearly, the parties did not have the type of firm intention to make New Jersey their permanent home which would be required to consider that State the matrimonial domicile in October, 1977, when the parties separated.

Melman v. Montefiore Medical Center

98 A.D.3d 107 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 29, 2012

To meet this burden, plaintiff must show that (1) [he] is a member of a protected class; (2) [he] was qualified to hold the position; (3) [he] was terminated from employment or suffered another adverse employment action; … The burden then shifts to the employer to rebut the presumption of discrimination by clearly setting forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence, legitimate, independent, and nondiscrimi- *114 natory reasons to

Title Guarantee & Trust Co. v. Pam

192 A.D. 268 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 4, 1920

The plaintiff not only has failed to establish by a fair preponderance of the evidence that it was a holder of the notes in due course, but the defendant has established facts tending to prove the contrary.” ( 155 N. Y. … Snow Cattle Co., 151 Mass. 74 , where the president acted in his own interest and not in that of the bank is clearly distinguishable.”

People v. Gonzalez

171 A.D.2d 127 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 30, 1991

As a practical matter, it absolves the defendant from any criminal responsibility even though the jury found, and the record clearly supports, that he abducted his victim and subjected her to a prolonged episode of unremitting … If the defendant’s calculated objective was robbery, rape, or assault, an abduction or asportation could qualify as subsidiary conduct.

Board of Higher Education v. Carter

16 A.D.2d 443 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 29, 1962

The Department of Education is clearly a State agency within the definitions given. … In certain areas, possibly including education, this may be a most desirable objective and, indeed, would seem to be clearly authorized (Executive Law, § 295, subds. 8, 9; § 294).

People ex rel. Nunns

188 A.D. 424 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 6, 1919

Laws, chap. 6; Laws of 1909, chap. 14), section 14, in that it wholly drops the qualifying words “ in rendering such verdict.” … Hence the Legislature has unmistakably left misconduct of jurors to be dealt with under the established methods of the criminal law.

HSH Nordbank AG v. UBS AG

95 A.D.3d 185 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 27, 2012

The relevant facts are alleged in the amended complaint and established by the undisputed documentary evidence. … As contemplated by this contractual provision, if HSH believed that it lacked sufficient expertise to evaluate the NS4 transaction unassisted, it was free to retain qualified outside consultants to render independent advice

Queens County Water Co. v. Monroe

83 A.D. 105 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 15, 1903

proper and reasonable exercise of discretion on the part of the court to restrain the purchase pending the litigation in aid of the plaintiff’s remedy, unless we are able to see on an examination of the complaint that he is clearly … In the last cited case it is said that “ in recent times courts are less disposed than formerly to depart from or qualify the plain words of a statute in favor of what is termed an equitable construction, in order to take

Board of Hudson River Regulating District v. Fonda, Johnstown & Gloversville Railroad

223 A.D. 358 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 5, 1928

It was created for the purpose of establishing reservoirs in the drainage areas of the Hudson river and its confluents by which water may be stored in wet seasons and released in dry seasons. … S. 394 , is qualified by the provisions of the Transportation Act.” (Railroad Commission v. Southern Pacific Co., 264 U. S. 331 .) In the Erie case, Mr.

Majlinger v. Cassino Contracting Corp.

25 A.D.3d 14 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 19, 2005

The IRCA establishes civil and criminal penalties for employers who violate the statute (see 8 USC § 1324a [e], [f]). … Clearly, Congress has neither expressly preempted awards of lost wages to undocumented aliens in state-court personal injury actions nor entirely occupied the fields of workplace safety and common-law torts.

Sinicropi v. Bennett

92 A.D.2d 309 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 21, 1983

This court annulled that determination and remitted the matter for a de nova determination on the original hearing record by a qualified official other than the one who had improperly made the original determination (Sinicropi … Earlier decisions established the principle that an employee was entitled to reinstatement to the public payroll after expiration of the statutory period (i.e., 30 days) even though his suspension continued thereafter.

Figari v. New York Telephone Co.

32 A.D.2d 434 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 25, 1969

Furthermore, initial resort to the courts is clearly proper where only questions of law are raised (Kovarsky v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 279 N. … That the interest urged here is merely colorable is established by pre-New York Times case law which holds that public service corporations are entitled to a qualified privilege in transmitting messages libelous on their

Diamond v. Cuomo

130 A.D.2d 292 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 1, 1987

However, insofar as a conflict is clearly created by the plain language of the ADEA as amended, we are constrained by the Supremacy Clause of US Constitution article VI to acknowledge the conflict between Federal and State … Consequently, the legislative history of that 1972 amendment to title VII may appropriately be considered here in establishing legislative intent (see, Lorillard v Pons, 434 US 575 ; Equal Employment Opportunity Commn. v