Case law

Zeppieri v. Vinson

140 N.Y.S.3d 311 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 21, 2021

To establish causation, a plaintiff must show that he or she would have prevailed in the underlying action or would not have incurred any damages, but for the lawyer's negligence" ( Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker … The July 2018 order clearly qualifies as documentary evidence.

New York City Campaign Finance Board v. Ortiz

38 A.D.3d 75 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 19, 2006

unreasonable, the motion court in Ortiz further held that defendants’ argument that section 3-710 (2) (b) authorizes the Board to impose a repayment on a committee, but not on the candidate and the treasurer, contradicts long-established … Clearly, regardless of generalized statements of legislative intent or otherwise, public financing of participating candidates’ campaigns is to be done through each candidate’s principal committee; the Act clearly requires

Boland v. State of New York

218 A.D.2d 235 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 29, 1996

Thus, our inquiry turns to whether claimant has established contact and reliance. … Contrary to the State’s assertion, Social Services Law, article 6, title 6 clearly is not designed to benefit the public at large.

Jaszai v. Christie's

279 A.D.2d 186 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 16, 2001

Suffice it to say that even in the depths of the Cold War, such an attempt to establish libel by innuendo was doomed to failure. … In light of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to reach the issue of whether the statement was protected by a qualified privilege.

DiRienzo v. State

187 A.D.2d 879 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 25, 1992

Here, the testimony at trial clearly established that the State collected surface water from the vicinity of Route 32 and discharged it onto private property. … Additionally, the State’s claim that it is immune from liability for its actions in this case is wholly devoid of merit (see, Musumeci v State of New York, supra, at 292).

Brynien v. New York State Department of Civil Service

79 A.D.3d 1501 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 23, 2010

A licensing accreditation *1505 process measures whether an applicant is fit to practice in that discipline according to the minimum standards established by the regulating authority. … In this regard, we reiterate that the classification standards issued by the Department for nearly all of the job titles at issue clearly establish that work experience is the primary and distinguishing factor in evaluating

Sullivan v. Smith

198 A.D.2d 749 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 24, 1993

Contrary to plaintiff’s arguments, the record evidence clearly establishes that the statements are not accident reports but are materials prepared for litigation under CPLR 3101 (d) (2) (see, e.g., Vernet v Gilbert, 90 AD2d … Such clearly is insufficient.

In re Cohen

9 A.D.2d 436 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 31, 1959

These principles have been well established by our highest courts and we abide by them. … after the Karlin case, that the same judicial inquiry was involved in both cases, that the opinion in the Levy case cites the Karlin case, and that, notwithstanding the Karlin case, the Court of Appeals in the Levy case clearly

In re Todd D.

288 A.D.2d 740 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 21, 2001

In September 2000, his probation officer filed a violation petition accusing respondent of two incidents of stealing, violating his curfew, refusing to attend school, and refusing to get a required immunization. … Here, the probation officer’s allegations, while appearing to have been made on personal knowledge, are clearly hearsay, a fact which is not presently disputed by petitioner.

DeMarco v. Federal Insurance

99 A.D.2d 114 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 2, 1984

We held in Penn that the plaintiff’s pleadings and affidavits failed to establish “any affirmative negligence or other wrongdoing on the part of the defendant; the charge is solely one of nonfeasance in that the defendant … Obviously, compensation carriers are not entitled to any greater immunity than employers for their intentional tortious acts.

People v. Didio

60 A.D.2d 978 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 20, 1978

Nor is there any other judicial precedent or statutory mandate establishing such warning as a condition precedent to the indictment returned here. … and Hancock, Jr., J., who dissent and vote to affirm the order in the following memorandum: Defendant’s answers do not demonstrate the willful and deliberate conduct "contrary to the plain directive of the court” which "clearly

Morrison v. Budget Rent A Car Systems, Inc.

230 A.D.2d 253 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 28, 1997

A State may waive its Eleventh Amendment protection from Federal court suits by citizens, but such waivers must be clearly spelled out (see, Clark v Barnard, 108 US 436, 447 ; Edelman v Jordan, 415 US 651, 673 , supra). … Nominees Establishment v Republic of Guinea, 693 F2d 1094, 1099, cert denied 464 US 815 ), given the "labyrinthine” character of the relationship (Note, Federal Jurisdiction and Procedure, 107 Harv L Rev 254, 264). .

Patane v. City of New York

284 A.D.2d 513 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 25, 2001

The instant case is clearly distinguishable from Camacho v City of New York ( 218 AD2d 725 ), upon which the City relies. … In Camacho, the evidence clearly established, as a matter of law, that the “raised portion of sidewalk” of which the City had received prior notice was not the same as the “hole * * * about three feet wide by about three

People v. Cromwell

2024 NY Slip Op 03934 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 26, 2024

The People contended that because defendant was convicted of a felony in North Carolina for which she was required to register as a sex offender in that state, she qualifies for designation as a sexually violent offender … Here, defendant established that the People never disputed the nonviolent nature of the sex offense of which defendant was convicted in North Carolina and neither the Board nor the People requested that points be assessed

People v. Bonaventura

168 A.D.2d 626 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 24, 1990

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 ). … Moreover, it was the defendant’s own trial strategy to reveal to the jury that he was suffering from Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (hereinafter AIDS).

Albino v. New York City Housing Authority

78 A.D.3d 485 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 16, 2010

Albino’s home for adoption was a discretionary act that was absolutely immune from civil liability. … NYCHA’s contention that it should be allowed further discovery to establish the existence of a special duty is unavailing.

Jetro Cash & Carry Enterprises v. State of New York Department of Taxation & Finance

194 A.D.2d 171 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 23, 1993

Supreme Court denied plaintiff’s motion and granted defendants’ cross motion on the ground that the CMSA is immune from the Federal antitrust laws by reason of the "State action” doctrine. Plaintiff has appealed. … Clearly, here, the details of the resale prices have been established as a product of deliberate State intervention and the anticompetitive scheme is that of New York, not private parties.

Barton v. Griffin

36 A.D. 572 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 1, 1899

Without, however, attempting to determine whether an answer denying only ¡such facts as are not admitted, qualified or denied by previous allegations in the answer, under the rule established by the Code, requiring facts … Y. 348 ) the-answer clearly specified what was admitted and what was denied.

Suba v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co.

114 A.D.2d 280 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 21, 1986

However, coverage is limited by a clearly labeled exclusion which provides that "Coverage L—Personal Liability and Coverage M—Medical Payments to Others do not apply to * * * "g. bodily injury to you or any insured within … whenever an insurer wishes to exclude certain coverage from its policy obligations, it must do so 'in clear and unmistakable’ language” which will "be accorded a strict and narrow construction” and satisfy the burden of establishing

Elmer v. Kratzer

249 A.D.2d 899 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 29, 1998

The rule established in Weiss v Fote requires more than proof that alternative methods exist. … Municipalities have a “qualified immunity from liability for highway planning decisions” (Green v County of Niagara, 184 AD2d 1044 ; see, Friedman v State of New York, 67 NY2d 271, 283 ).