Case law

Parchefsky v. Kroll Bros.

242 A.D. 346 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 15, 1934

His right to compensation was established when it was apparent that he was injured in an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment. … Clearly that section does not apply to this case. It relates solely to suits against third parties causing the injuries.

People v. Frisbie

70 A.D.2d 1053 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 1, 1979

Memorandum: The record clearly demonstrates defendant’s guilt. … Aili had been living with defendant, had quarreled with him and left him and that the police had been questioning her about her own criminal activities and had agreed to grant her immunity therefrom in return for her testimony

In re Schuyler

63 A.D. 206 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 1, 1901

The rule is well established that if a party relies upon the exception contained in the part of section 31 in favor of hotelkeepers,, iona fide clubs, etc., he must plead and prove the facts bringing him within the exception … The custom of trafficking in liquor on Sunday after the manner-of the respondent (by his own showing) is too clearly contrary to the exjiress provisions of the statute to bear scrutiny and should not be countenanced.

Young v. Oak Crest Park, Inc.

75 A.D.2d 956 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 15, 1980

The instrument also provided that, if Deseret were not qualified to act in a jurisdiction, it could designate a qualified person to act in its behalf in that State. … Since Deseret was not qualified in this State, the company appointed the appellant, Kay A. Young, as the subordinate trustee.

King v. County of Saratoga Industrial Development Agency

208 A.D.2d 194 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 26, 1995

In April 1989, the partnership entered into a contract to purchase the 232-acre parcel and thereafter engaged in hydro-geologic testing to establish its qualifications for a landfill. … the evaluation of various factors, "none of which [are] controlling” (Westhab, Inc. v Village of Elmsford, 151 Misc 2d 1071, 1074 ), among the factors so weighed are " 'the nature and scope of the instrumentality seeking immunity

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.

Donohue v. Copiague Union Free School District

64 A.D.2d 29 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 31, 1978

The first cause of action sounds in negligence and malpractice and alleges, inter alia, that the defendant school district was under a duty to educate the plaintiff and qualify him for a high school graduation certificate … "An intention to impose upon the city the crushing burden of such an obligation should not be imputed to the Legislature in the absence of language clearly designed to have that effect.”

Guzman v. 4030 Bronx Boulevard Associates L.L.C.

54 A.D.3d 42 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 19, 2008

Plaintiffs clearly did not agree, stating that “what we’re doing now is a Frye hearing,” to which the court responded, “This is not a Frye hearing.” The court made it quite plain that the sufficiency of Dr. … Thus, Supreme Court properly decided that plaintiffs’ expert failed to establish a sufficient evidentiary foundation with respect to causation.

People ex rel. Apfel v. Casey

66 A.D. 211 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 15, 1901

It was a judicial, determination and one which was founded' upon facts which were established to the satisfaction of the person rendering the same. … Clearly not; and if not, then a review of his action must be sought through some other medium than the one resorted to by the relator.

Canty v. Motor Vehicle Accident inDemnification Corp.

95 A.D.2d 509 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 26, 1983

The threshold determination that an individual is a “qualified person” does not, however, end the inquiry. … It clearly and unequivocally requires a no-fault claimant to meet the same requirements that all other persons filing claims with MVAIC must meet.

Fiore v. Town of Whitestown

125 A.D.3d 1527 · 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 [1987]), and “[t]he privilege of absolute immunity . . . … plaintiffs’ further contention, the court properly granted that part of defendants’ motion seeking dismissal of the second and third causes of action, for two separate incidents of slander, asserted against Ulinski. “ ‘A qualified

Ortiz v. State of New York

2022 NY Slip Op 01948 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 18, 2022

The only provisions of CPL 440.10 (1) that so qualify are paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (e), and (g) thereof ( see Court of Claims Act § 8-b [3] [b] [ii] [A]). … As a waiver of the State's sovereign immunity from suit, the "requirements of [section 8-b] are to be strictly construed" ( Gioeli v State of New York , 39 AD3d 815, 816 [2d [*2]Dept 2007]; see Long , 7 NY3d at 276 ), and

People v. Korkala

99 A.D.2d 161 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 14, 1984

CBS moved to quash the subpoena, contending that the unpublished materials were protected from disclosure by a “qualified privilege” deriving from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and also were protected … , *164 that the People already have that portion of the interview that was broadcast and that as to the unbroadcast material there has not been a showing of materiality, relevance or necessity sufficient to override the immunity

Bartolacci-Meir v. Sassoon

149 A.D.3d 567 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 20, 2017

Befeler, plaintiff “was noted to have had continuous and persistent malodorous discharge which is clearly a surgical problem since the fistula which developed was not managed.” Dr. … [1st Dept 2015] [pathologist not qualified to render an opinion *572 as to the standard of care in obstetrics or cardiology]; Mustello v Berg, 44 AD3d 1018 [2d Dept 2007] [general surgeon not qualified to render opinion as

Post v. County of Suffolk

80 A.D.3d 682 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 18, 2011

The Supreme Court erred in denying the County’s motion, as the evidence submitted in support of the motion established that the County was immune from liability for the acts of its employee. … here — the evaluation of the decedent’s needs for assistance with the acts of daily living, made by a nurse employed by the County, as well as the nurse’s authorization of the provision of services to meet those needs— clearly

P. T. Wanderer Associates Inc. v. Talcott Communications Corp.

111 A.D.2d 55 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 14, 1985

Defendant responded by pointing out that the prior court had specifically *56 determined that plaintiff had not established a right to an order of attachment pursuant to CPLR 6201 (3), a finding which had been affirmed on … My review of this record clearly indicates that the defendant qualified solely to do business in this State so that it would be in a position to ward off an application for an order of attachment.

Sogg v. American Airlines Inc.

193 A.D.2d 153 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 14, 1993

Plaintiff clearly established a prima facie case by demonstrating that she was entitled to protection based on sex and age and we find that she presented sufficient evidence concerning her serious heart condition to establish … She additionally established that she was qualified for the promotion, that she wanted the promotion and was denied it, and that the promotion was given to someone outside the same classes of sex, age, and protected disability

Nowack v. New York City Transit Authority

40 A.D.3d 510 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 29, 2007

Lippmann, J.), entered October 4, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss, on qualified immunity grounds, that branch of the complaint … twisting and undulating subway tunnels, an opinion corroborated in part by a 1982 National Transportation Safety Board study as well as by internal Transit Authority correspondence and memoranda included in that study, established

Casini v. Sea Gate Ass'n

262 A.D.2d 593 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 28, 1999

Here, the Association satisfied its burden by producing affidavits and photographs which clearly and convincingly demonstrated that it surrounded the traffic island with a concrete curb, enclosed it with a low fence, and … In contrast, land which is held by a municipality in its proprietary capacity is not immune from adverse possession (see, City of Tonawanda v Ellicott Cr.