Case law

O'Neil v. Peekskill Faculty Ass'n

120 A.D.2d 36 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 14, 1986

"Legal representation of a client, by itself, does not establish an individual as a public figure. … In Silsdorf v Levine ( 59 NY2d 8, 13, 15 , cert denied 464 US 831 ), it was clearly stated that "the immunity afforded the expression of opinion obtains only when the facts supporting the opinion are set forth” and that the

Kelsey v. Catena

2023 NY Slip Op 03394 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 22, 2023

Ultimately, plaintiff bore the burden of establishing that jurisdiction was acquired ( see Cedar Run Homeowners' Assn., Inc. v Adirondack Dev. … As to the posttrial proceedings, CPL 440.10 (1) clearly provides that the authority to vacate a judgment is provided to "the court in which it was entered."

Hinnigan v. State

94 A.D.2d 830 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 5, 1983

The only obligation of the State under the statute was to lend technical assistance to towns and to issue regulations to qualify a town for the program. … We conclude that none has been established (Schuster v City of New York, 5 NY2d 75 ). The town was not under any obligation to comply with the Federal insurance program.

Timashpolsky v. State University of New York Health Science Center

306 A.D.2d 271 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 2, 2003

The hospital also established that the plaintiffs termination was motivated by a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason (see Blum v New York Stock Exch., 298 AD2d 343, 344 [2002]). … Those defendants are protected by a qualified immunity pursuant to Education Law § 6527 (3) and (5) (see Sithian v Spence, 283 AD2d 566 [2001]; Pappalardo v Meisel, 112 AD2d 277, 278 [1985]; see also Public Health Law § 2805

McCabe v. Dutchess County

72 A.D.3d 145 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 2, 2010

Nationwide, some jurisdictions that hold parents immune from suits brought by their children apply such immunity to foster parents (see Nichol v Stass, 192 Ill 2d 233, 735 NE2d 582 [2000]; Mitchell v Davis, 598 So 2d 801 … The Court noted, however, that in abolishing the immunity defense, it was not creating any new liabilities. Rather, it was merely permitting recovery previously barred by the intrafamily immunity doctrine (id. at 439).

People v. Rodriguez

197 A.D.2d 546 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 4, 1993

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of felony murder beyond a reasonable doubt. … We further note in this regard that the prosecutor acted well within her discretion in declining to grant immunity to the declarant (see, CPL 50.30; People v Chin, 67 NY2d 22 ; People v Adams, 53 NY2d 241 ). Bracken, J.

Kuchinski v. Charge & Ride, Inc.

21 A.D.3d 1062 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 26, 2005

“[T]he State is accorded a qualified immunity from liability arising out of a highway planning decision” (Buhr v State of New York, 295 AD2d 462, 463 [2002], quoting Friedman v State of New York, 67 NY2d 271, 283 [1986]). … We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination that Charge and Ride demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by establishing that it exercised only incidental control over Choudhary that was insufficient

Affleck v. Buckley

276 A.D.2d 507 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 10, 2000

The County failed to sustain its burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law based on qualified *511 immunity, as there are issues of fact regarding whether its decision not to install a traffic … Accordingly, the instant action does not present a “duel of the experts” and the County’s invocation of qualified immunity protection cannot be posited on this ground.

Longo v. Tafaro

137 A.D.2d 661 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 16, 1988

Thus, in the field of traffic design engineering, the State is accorded a qualified immunity from liability arising out of a highway planning decision (Alexander v Eldred, 63 NY2d 460, 465-466 ; Weiss v Fote, 7 NY2d 579, … "Under this doctrine of qualified immunity, a governmental body may be held liable when its study of a traffic condition is plainly inadequate or there is no reasonable basis for its traffic plan (Alexander v Eldred, 63 NY2d

Polzer v. TRW, Inc.

256 A.D.2d 248 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 29, 1998

of summary judgment to defendants BNY and Mobil was not procedurally inappropriate since those defendants either moved for or requested such relief, and all parties, in submitting documents in support of their arguments, clearly … In dismissing plaintiffs’ statutory claims, the motion court also properly determined that the acts or omissions that are alleged to have violated General Business Law § 349 were protected by the qualified immunity granted

Blanke v. State of New York

2023 NY Slip Op 03625 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 30, 2023

immunity from liability arising out of highway planning decisions ( see Friedman , 67 NY2d at 283 ; Weiss , 7 NY2d at 584-586, 588 ). … The State presented evidence establishing that it repeatedly studied the accident rate and visibility issues at the subject intersection and made changes as necessary.

People v. O'Farrow

141 A.D.2d 674 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 13, 1988

Finally, the defendant contends that the complaining witness should not have been believed because she was granted immunity from prosecution for lying about the amount of money that was taken. … Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88 ).

Power v. Frasier

131 A.D.3d 461 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 5, 2015

“Workers’ Compensation qualifies as an exclusive remedy when both the plaintiff and the defendant are acting within the scope of their employment, as coemployees, at the time of injury” (Macchirole v Giamboi, 97 NY2d 147, … The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against John by showing that John was acting within the scope of his employment when the

Stafford v. A&E Real Estate Holdings, LLC

141 N.Y.S.3d 307 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 30, 2021

Plaintiffs, as "[t]he proponent of the privilege[,] bear[] the burden of establishing that the information sought is immune from disclosure" ( People v Greenberg , 50 AD3d 195, 200 [1st Dept 2008] citing Spectrum Sys. … However, plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of establishing that these communications were privileged.

Zervos v. Trump

2019 NY Slip Op 1851 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 14, 2019

Fitzgerald contended that Nixon could only claim qualified immunity, which only protected the President from certain suits. In contrast, Nixon claimed he was entitled to absolute immunity for his official acts. … In furtherance of this rationale, cabinet members and presidential aides are entitled to qualified immunity to protect the free flow of ideas during communications with the President ( Harlow v Fitzgerald , 457 US 800, 810

Ganios v. State

181 A.D.2d 859 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 30, 1992

Thus, in the field of traffic design engineering, the State is accorded a qualified immunity from liability arising out of a highway planning decision (Alexander v Eldred, 63 NY2d 460, 465-466 ; Weiss v Fote, 7 NY2d 579, … There was expert testimony establishing that the newly-paved asphalt possessed a different coefficient of stopping friction from the existing, extraordinarily slippery concrete pavement, thereby precipitating the claimant

Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Town of Moreau Assessor

8 A.D.3d 935 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 24, 2004

A person seeking to invoke this immunity must establish that “(1) he or she is in fact a nonresident, (2) whose sole purpose in appearing in New York is to attend the judicial proceedings, and (3) there were no other means … In our view, the affidavits of Lagassa and Pikul do not clearly establish that either expert entered New York for the sole purpose of attending a judicial proceeding or, in fact, that they actually appeared to provide testimony

People v. Helmsley

170 A.D.2d 209 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 7, 1991

one offense are in the main clearly distinguishable from those establishing the other; or "(b) Each of the offenses as defined contains an element which is not an element of the other, and the statutory provisions defining … from those establishing the other.

Moscato v. Frontier Distributing, Inc.

254 A.D.2d 802 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 2, 1998

The evidence of such past recreational use for ATV and motorbike riding “clearly evinces that the property is physically conducive to that activity” (Albright v Metz, supra, at 662). … The evidence further establishes that, despite its urban location and commercial use, the property is “appropriate for public use in pursuing the activity as recreation” (Iannotti v Consolidated Rail Corp., 74 NY2d 39, 45

Wilson v. Sponable

81 A.D.2d 1 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 27, 1981

Decisional law dealing with mental patients and pris *8 oners clearly establishes that the State has a duty of supervision with respect to suicidal persons in its care and custody. … This observation refutes plaintiffs’ contention and establishes that the extent of public services for the care of suicidal prisoners is limited by the resources of the community.