Case law

Czajka v. Koweek

100 A.D.3d 1136 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 8, 2012

Petitioner’s status as a constitutional officer, however, does not render him immune from the Rules of Professional Conduct or, more to the point, Judiciary Law § 17, which provides that “[a] judge or surrogate or former … Absent such qualifying or limiting language, the statutory prohibition is absolute and mandates petitioner’s disqualification as District Attorney in Fox’s criminal prosecution. 2 Because we are of the view that Judiciary

Hernandez v. Barrios-Paoli

253 A.D.2d 585 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 3, 1998

Applicants specifically must still meet eligibility criteria established by local, State or Federal law (§ 21-128 [a] [3]; [b]). … qualifies only the immediately preceding sentence, with regard to additional benefits and services, rather than qualifying the passage as a whole addressing basic benefits and services (§ 21-128 [b]).

In re the Claim of Magwood

73 A.D.2d 1014 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 24, 1980

the same weeks of uncovered service to establish entitlement to State benefits. … While it is clear that had claimant filed his claim on January 2, 1978 rather than on December 20, 1977, he would have qualified for State benefits since section 590 (subd 12, par [a]) of the Labor Law qualified prior uncovered

People v. Kenny

36 A.D.2d 477 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 20, 1971

Convictions involving the sale of dangerous drugs require more than the conclusion of a layman to establish the drug as one of those proscribed by statute. (Public Health Law, § 3301, subd. 38.) … His testimony was not offered as that of a qualified expert (clearly he was not one), but as that of a layman, and as such, it was incompetent for purposes of identifying the substance as marijuana.

Matter of Canning v. Revoir

2023 NY Slip Op 04623 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 14, 2023

Petitioner filed a motion to quash the subpoena before respondent County Judge of Chenango County (hereinafter respondent), arguing that the information sought was protected by the qualified immunity for journalists under … Even accepting that the information was "highly material and relevant" to the prosecution of Ramsaran, the People failed to establish that it was "critical or necessary."

Grumet v. Pataki

244 A.D.2d 31 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 9, 1998

“Equally well established is the principle that statutes of general applicability that extend their benefits *36 without regard to religion honor the neutrality requirement and are generally beyond Establishment Clause reproach … In Kiryas Joel II, the Court of Appeals clearly expressed its disapproval of the fact that chapter 241 was so narrow that only the Village qualified for its benefits and that no other group could likely ever qualify (id.,

Matter of HDV Manhattan, LLC v. Tax Appeals Trib. of The State of New York

156 A.D.3d 963 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 7, 2017

Petitioners presented testimony from two witnesses who were qualified as experts in dance choreography. … In short, the record as a whole failed to clearly depict the type of activity that took place in the private rooms.

Matter of Academy v. New York State Educ. Dept.

2019 NY Slip Op 1465 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 28, 2019

Chapter 507 of the Laws of 1974 (as amended) establishes that qualifying schools shall receive reimbursement for certain services, such as testing, attendance record keeping and immunizations, as required under the state's … The most logical and reasonable interpretation of chapter 507 is that a nonpublic school must be physically located in New York to qualify for the statutory reimbursements.

FIORE, MICHAEL v. TOWN OF WHITESTOWN

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 13, 2015

are made in the discharge of their responsibilities about matters within the ambit of their duties” (Baumblatt v Battalia, 134 AD2d 226, 228), and “[t]he privilege of absolute immunity . . . … of action, for two separate incidents of  -3- 1304 CA 14-00914 slander, asserted against Ulinski. “ ‘A qualified

People ex rel. Hofsaes v. Warden of City Prison

277 A.D.2d 398 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 9, 1950

When again called before the Grand Jury, however, he was put on notice that the People intended to establish, through his own testimony, under the waiver of immunity, facts which the County Judge had already characterized … If the doubt as to the scope of relator’s immunity shall be dissipated and he shall still refuse to answer, his conduct will be clearly contumacious, and a proper basis for such a finding.

People v. Dercole

72 A.D.2d 318 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 4, 1980

That uncertainty in the court’s mind, translates to—into a question of whether or not it can be said as a matter of fact, or of law, that the willfulness required in the statute was clearly spelled out beyond a reasonable … Dunn thus accorded with established New York precedents, and until People v Bullis ( 30 AD2d 470 ) in 1968, it achieved a virtual consensus in the State.

Lytwyn v. Town of Wawarsing

43 A.D.2d 618 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 8, 1973

It was thus established that the mere act of creating a channel which would discharge water onto another’s lands constituted an actionable wrong without requiring a showing that such channel was constructed or maintained … Therefore, the trial court’s charge on the issue of notice was clearly erroneous. A new trial is required. The jury will have to determine whether the defendant in fact created the ditch.

Metzger v. Nassau County Civil Service Commission

54 A.D.2d 565 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 20, 1976

The state civil service department and municipal commissions may refuse to examine an applicant, or after examination to certify an eligible (a) who is found to lack any of the established requirements for admission to the … The exercise of that discretion is to be sustained unless it has been clearly abused (Matter of Cowen v Heavy, 283 NY 232 ).

A.A. Truck Renting Corp. v. Navistar, Inc.

81 A.D.3d 674 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 8, 2011

“[W]ords of general release are clearly operative not only as to all controversies and causes of action between the releasor and releasees which had, by that time, actually ripened into litigation, but to all such issues … Therefore, Navistar sufficiently established that the release barred any claim arising from the rebate agreement (see Friends of Avalon Preparatory School v Ehrenfeld, 6 AD3d 658 [2004]).

Guptill Holding Corp. v. State

33 A.D.2d 362 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 2, 1970

This negates any inference that it was formed merely as a shell to hold the condemnation award immune from satisfaction of Gruptill’s personal tax liability. … While Gruptill clearly had complete dominion and control over the petitioner, this is not the type of case where this control was used to commit a wrong.

Lehrich v. Sixth Avenue Bancorporation, Inc.

251 A.D. 391 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 28, 1937

It duly qualified to do business in the State of New York on May 31, 1929. The corporation was engaged primarily in buying securities for investment purposes and continued as a going concern until March 17, 1933. … We do not say that those in charge of the undistributed assets in this State of the dissolved foreign corporation are immune from suit. (Sturges v. Vanderbilt, supra; DeMartini v. McCaldin, supra.

People v. Jackson

45 A.D.2d 828 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 2, 1974

The basic rule excluding evidence of prior unlawful conduct to establish criminal disposition is firmly established in this State. … Additionally, the court’s charge on the legal definition of “ acting in concert ” was clearly prejudicial to defendant.

John B. v. Village of Rockville Centre

113 A.D.2d 225 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 18, 1985

Since no legislative history is available which clearly explains the purpose behind section 33.01, we consider it appropriate to quote the words of the late Justice Felix Frankfurter: "[T]his is a case for applying the canon … It did not intend to make a probationary civil service employee who seeks treatment for a mental disability immune from termination of his employment if his mental problem renders him unqualified for his job.

Mack v. Board of Appeals

25 A.D.3d 977 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 19, 2006

Thus, petitioners clearly had standing. … Supreme Court properly determined that a pest extermination business does not qualify as a home professional office.

Bank of New York v. Nies

96 A.D.2d 166 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 4, 1983

The section was amended “to require that the order of the court direct a ‘qualified’ discharge of record unless it is established that no lien of the judgment survived the [bankruptcy] proceeding” (NY Legis Ann, 1953, p 13 … An unqualified discharge should be granted only when it is affirmatively shown that the lien was clearly dissolved in bankruptcy and no longer exists.