Case law

Falkner v. Hand

61 A.D.3d 1153 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 9, 2009

Falkner (third accident)—separately moved for summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiff did not sustain a qualifying serious injury (see Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; § 5104 [a]). … Plaintiff’s medical records and her own deposition testimony establish that she had a history of significant neck and lower back problems before the accidents.

People v. Cavalieri

36 A.D.2d 284 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 15, 1971

It must clearly appear that the witness is being offered transactional immunity, as distinguished from testimonial or use immunity. As was said by the court in People v. De Feo ( 308 N. … the court below or, as claimed by the defendant, was qualified and restricted by the limitations mentioned by the foreman of the Grand Jury.

Ebbets v. City of New York

111 A.D. 364 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 9, 1906

It does not clearly appear what the relative levels of the sewer and the drains were, but it is fairly inferable that the drains were nearly on a level with the sewer, as one witness for the plaintiffs describes the drains … Mayor, (76 id. 60); this principle, however, cannot be extended so as to grant immunity to municipalities for acts which result in the invasion of private property or *366 the creation, of- public or private nuisances, and

Sexter & Warmflash, P.C. v. Margrabe

38 A.D.3d 163 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 4, 2007

Clearly, no such exception to the privilege could apply in this case, since S & W, which filed the Westchester County action on Ms. … This suggestion is clearly without merit.

Vantage Careers, Inc. v. Vantage Agency, Inc.

79 A.D.2d 912 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 8, 1981

The name “Vantage” is not so distinctive nor is its use by plaintiff so well established and exclusive as to warrant the relief granted on trial. … with the use of the word “Vantage” that will clearly distinguish defendant’s business from plaintiff’s.

Andrews v. County of Cayuga

142 A.D.3d 1347 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 30, 2016

Here, defendant failed to establish that its expert, a psychiatrist, was qualified to offer an opinion that plaintiff’s shoulder injuries were not caused by defendant’s negligence (cf. … (2) that such conduct deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States” (Kennedy v St.

Agostinelli v. Stein

17 A.D.3d 982 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 29, 2005

Rather, the bylaws provide immunity for the individual members serving on the Board. … We note, however, that the management agreement also requires that the association purchase insurance for the benefit of Rainaldi, which is “clearly distinct from and treated differently [from] an agreement to indemnify,”

Fleck v. Perla

40 A.D.2d 1069 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 12, 1972

“It [is] well established that if the issue is fairly debatable a motion for summary judgment must be denied.” (Stone v. Goodson, 8 N Y 2d 812; see, e.g., Falk v. Goodman, 7 N Y 2d 87, 91; Sillman v. … “To grant summary judgment, it must clearly appear that no material and triable issue of fact is presented (Di Menna & Sons v. City of New York, 301 N. Y. 118 ).

Zadrima v. PSM Insurance Companies

208 A.D.2d 529 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 3, 1994

Clearly, however, the plaintiffs were subject to potential strict liability pursuant to Labor Law §§240 and 241, and they possessed no reasonable belief of nonliability (see, Platsky v Government Empls. Ins. … Thus, no ordinary prudent person could have reasonably believed himself to be immune from potential civil liability under the circumstances (see, Winstead v Uniondale Union Free School Dist., 201 AD2d 721 ).

Burger v. Brookhaven Medical Arts Building, Inc.

131 A.D.2d 622 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 15, 1987

While it is true that a corporate officer who is charged with inducing the breach of a contract between the corporation and a third party is immune from liability if it appears that he is acting in good faith as an officer … , the evidence must clearly show that he did not commit independent torts or predatory acts directed at the other party (see, Murtha v Yonkers Child Care Assn., 45 NY2d 913 ).

Schwartzberg v. Mongiardo

113 A.D.2d 172 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 27, 1985

Al *175 though not articulated as a qualified privilege, that was clearly the test applied by Special Term. … Since the OSP report was clearly germane to the inquiry, defendants were authorized to disclose its content.

Padula v. State

59 A.D.2d 480 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 8, 1977

Furthermore, we reject the State’s contention that the incident occurred as result of a governmental decision for which immunity has not been waived by the State. … It is significant that it was not drugs that were being consumed, but alcohol, clearly marked as poisonous.

Uber Tech., Inc. v. American Arbitration Assn., Inc.

2022 NY Slip Op 02503 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 14, 2022

Uber failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits for any of its claims. … Because Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Uber failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits on any claim, this Court need not reach the issue of arbitral immunity under California law

Defreestville Area Neighborhoods Ass'n v. Tazbir

23 A.D.3d 70 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 25, 2005

forth a temporal limitation and/or cutoff date by which the list is to be established. … Clearly, there is a distinction between being qualified to vote and registered to vote (see id.; cf. Matter of Larkin v Colello, 131 Misc 2d 790 [1986]).

Bronxville Scout Comm. v. County of Westchester

2024 NY Slip Op 04055 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 31, 2024

"In order for evidence submitted in support of a CPLR 3211(a)(1) motion to qualify as 'documentary evidence,' it must be 'unambiguous, authentic, and undeniable'" ( Leader v Steinway, Inc. , 180 AD3d 886, 887 , quoting Granada … "Conversely, when a municipality holds real property in its proprietary capacity, there is no immunity against adverse possession" ( Monthie v Boyle Rd. Assoc. , 281 AD2d at 20 ; see Mazzei v Metropolitan Transp.

People v. Gerber

182 A.D.2d 252 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 14, 1992

As our Court of Appeals recently observed in People v Seaberg ( 74 NY2d 1, 7 ): "Plea bargaining is now established as a vital part of ow criminal justice system. … misconduct during the Grand Jury proceedings by placing the "staged” photograph in evidence and by eliciting opinion testimony from a nonexpert witness has been forfeited by his guilty plea, inasmuch as his allegations clearly

Miner v. Reinhardt

225 A.D. 530 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 5, 1929

“It is clearly understood that Miner is only obliged to bring about one of the aforesaid three productions.” … As already pointed out, the difficulty with plaintiff’s position is that his affidavit ignores essential portions of the contract and very important affidavits and testimony which clearly establish that there are issues which

Holy Spirit Ass'n for the Unification of World Christianity v. Tax Commission

81 A.D.2d 64 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 5, 1981

Taxpayers have the burden of establishing their entitlement to exemptions (Dickinson v United States, 346 US 389 ). … However, to qualify for an exemption, the church must establish thht it is organized or conduted primarily for religious purposes (Dickinson v United States, supra; Christian Echoes Nat.

Striker v. Daly

175 A.D. 620 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 29, 1916

Y. 1 (10 et seq.), where, though renunciation was not there sufficiently established, the court assumed that the resignation of one who has once qualified, leaves the others competent to execute the power; and they say: ‘ … Ch. 565 ), but in that case the question arose only incidentally, and the chancellor’s remarks upon the subject were clearly obiter dictum.

Arlasky v. Dimitri

38 A.D.2d 665 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 22, 1971

The record establishes without dispute that after a long hospitalization and confinement in a nursing home, petitioner’s Medicare benefits were about to run out. … Under the circumstances, we find the Commissioner’s determination that petitioner transferred her real property for the purpose of qualifying for assistance was clearly warranted.