Case law

Cayruth v. City of Mount Vernon

188 A.D.3d 1139 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 25, 2020

the evaluation of probable cause to arrest and requisite suspicion to perform a strip search, were objectively reasonable precludes an award of summary judgment in favor of Antonini, Vitelli, and Fegan on the ground of qualified … immunity ( see Williams v City of New York , 153 AD3d 1301, 1304 ).

Presti v. New York Racing Ass'n

46 A.D.2d 387 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 6, 1975

Thus, as an unlicensed person, the petitioner was clearly subject to the appellant’s absolute right of exclusion set forth in Madden and Licata (supra). … Such relief is not to be granted unless a clear right thereto is established by the moving papers (Park Terrace Caterers v. McDonough, 9 A D 2d 113).

Inc. Village of Asharoken v. Pitassy

119 A.D.2d 404 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 14, 1986

Upon consideration of the voluminous evidence adduced at trial, the court concluded, on the basis of its factual findings with respect to what is taught at the defendant Sandpiper, that the establishment did not qualify as … Sandpiper is clearly deficient in that respect.

Daisernia v. Co-Operative G. L. F. Holding Corp.

26 A.D.2d 594 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 3, 1966

appellants, employees of the operating corporation, are alike in the employ of the operating corporation, that is, “in the same employ” (Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 29, subd. 6), with the result that respondent is thus immunized … It cannot be determined conclusively at this juncture of the proceeding's, however, that respondent cannot upon the trial establish its defenses upon other competent proof.

People v. Kronberg

243 A.D.2d 132 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 23, 1998

The court found that the People failed to establish that the identity of the three witnesses obtained from the New Jersey Attorney General did not stem from Kronberg’s immunized testimony. … While Kastigar does not define the standard of proof in establishing that evidence has a source other than the immunized testimony, Federal appellate courts have, without exception, held that the People’s burden is to show

People v. Taylor

2 A.D.2d 977 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 3, 1956

Moreover, this same witness testified that he had received no promise as to immunity or sentence in connection with his testimony against appellant. … Under the circumstances, and in view of the fact that appellant’s guilt is clearly established, the judgment of conviction should be affirmed (Code Crim Pro., § 542).

324 Liquor Corp. v. McLaughlin

102 A.D.2d 607 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 12, 1984

The program, however, does not meet the second requirement for Parker immunity. The State simply authorizes price setting and enforces the prices established by private parties. … There is no doubt that this statement of policy is sufficient to meet the first standard necessary to establish antitrust immunity under Parker v Brown (supra).

People v. Anhut

162 A.D. 517 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 28, 1914

bring himself clearly within some provision of law which grants such immunity. … The defendant was clearly guilty.

Supan v. Michelfeld

97 A.D.2d 755 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 7, 1983

However, this immunity only protects defendants in discharging their responsibilities (Smith v Helbraun, supra). … When the members of the board made those charges while in the process of terminating plaintiff’s employment, they were clearly acting within their responsibilities.

Englington Medical, P.C. v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

81 A.D.3d 223 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 11, 2011

On appeal, MVAIC maintains that it was entitled to summary judgment because it established, prima facie, that Cruz was not a “qualified person” entitled to recover no-fault benefits, as the vehicle which she was operating … This Court reversed, holding, inter alia, that the plaintiff did not establish that he was a qualified person pursuant to Insurance Law article *233 52 because, contrary to his contention, motorcycles were not exempt from

Wulfsohn v. Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic

202 A.D. 421 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 21, 1922

, is not entitled to immunity. … This immunity follows from recognition as a sovereign State.

People v. Greco

187 A.D.2d 151 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 4, 1993

To the contrary, the affidavit in support of the eavesdropping warrant clearly reflected the informant’s basis of knowledge and the informant’s credibility was corroborated by the pen register analysis. … While a prosecutor possesses the discretion to determine when to immunize a witness (see, CPL 50.30), that discretion is subject to review for abuse where the prosecutor "builds his case with immunized witnesses but denies

Rubino v. City of New York

114 A.D.2d 243 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 27, 1986

Such activities clearly fall within the "governmental function” of providing police protection in a general sense and would afford no basis for liability to a particular individual. … The instant case, too, clearly falls within that segment of the "continuum of responsibility” deriving from defendant Board’s proprietary functions as the landlord of the school yard where the injury occurred.

Cicci v. Chemung County

122 A.D.3d 1181 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 26, 2014

Police officers performing their governmental duty are entitled to qualified immunity “as long as their actions did not violate the plaintiffs clearly established legal rights” (Colao v Mills, 39 AD3d 1048, 1050 [2007]; see … Moreover, defendants submitted sufficient unrebut *1183 ted proof to establish the exigent circumstances exception for a warrantless entry (see generally People v McBride, 14 NY3d 440, 445 [2010], cert denied 562 US —, 131

In re R. C. Shaheen Paint Co.

162 A.D.2d 888 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 28, 1990

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 1, 1988, which established the employer’s contribution rate for 1988. … Furthermore, what constitutes a "qualified employer” is clearly set forth by the Legislature and the provisions denying the benefit of the lower rate become operational in the event an employer fails to timely file a contribution

People v. Brazzeal

172 A.D.2d 757 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 22, 1991

This conduct was clearly improper (see, People v Wright, 41 NY2d 118 ; People v Fitzpatrick, supra; People v McNair, 59 AD2d 787 ; People v Jordan, 59 AD2d 746 ). … The prosecutor improperly stated, during the course of his opening remarks, that Tarik Greene knew the defendant, and then failed to establish that fact at trial (see, People v Cruz, 100 AD2d 882 ).

De Simone v. Transportes Maritimos Do Estado

200 A.D. 82 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 3, 1922

Finally, if we were to pass by the questions already considered, appellant is confronted with a line of cases of ruling authority which have now clearly held that the immunity of the sovereign being susceptible of waiver … Is this immunity from suit lost by appearing generally and protesting or setting up the plea of immunity by answer?

Cohen v. State of NY

51 A.D.2d 494 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 15, 1976

While this record establishes that patients were discussed at team meetings, it is not established that any evaluation of this decedent’s suicide propensities was made by a qualified psychiatrist during his stay at the hospital … In our opinion, under such circumstances, the award of damages is clearly excessive, there being no fair basis for the same.

Becher v. Troy Publishing Co.

183 A.D.2d 230 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 5, 1992

The case law has established a liberal interpretation of the "fair and true report” standard of Civil Rights Law § 74 so as to provide broad protection to news accounts of judicial or other official proceedings. … The article as a whole may nevertheless be substantially accurate so as to qualify as a fair and true report (see, Holy Spirit Assn. for Unification of World Christianity v New York Times Co., 49 NY2d 63, 67-68 , supra; Briarcliff

Santero v. Kotwal

4 A.D.3d 464 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 17, 2004

While the incident report may be protected from disclosure pursuant to Education Law § 6527 (3) and Public Health Law § 2805-m, any statements therein made by an individual defendant to this action are not immune from disclosure … The plaintiff established that the urological examination sought by the defendants is potentially harmful, and clearly invasive.