Case law

Heffer v. Krebs

196 A.D.3d 684 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 28, 2021

To prevail on a motion to punish for civil contempt, the movant must establish by clear and convincing evidence: "(1) that a lawful order of the court, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, was in effect, (2) that the … Further, while the parties had an issue with communication with respect to the issue of immunization, the defendant did not set forth any evidence to indicate that the parties' relationship was so acrimonious that joint legal

Dwan v. Massarene

199 A.D. 872 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 10, 1922

Thus was clearly raised an issue of fact that could not be determined on affidavits, and the parties were correctly remitted to a trial. … Plaintiff’s affidavit must state such facts as are necessary to establish a good cause of action.

People v. Doll

98 A.D.3d 356 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 6, 2012

Although the record indicates that the deputies seized defendant’s clothing, it does not clearly establish whether that seizure occurred before or after the victim’s body was found. … Although the record does not clearly establish the exact time of that seizure, the record does establish that it occurred after he was handcuffed.

Tenkate v. Moore

274 A.D.2d 934 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 27, 2000

Plaintiff subsequently observed that Erica was lethargic and inactive, but attributed these symptoms to a recent immunization. … Although plaintiffs clearly will bear the burden of proof on the issue at trial (see, Henry v General Motors Corp., 201 AD2d 949 , Iv denied 84 NY2d 803 ), they raised sufficient issues of fact in the context of this summary

Frechette v. State

129 A.D.3d 1409 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 25, 2015

Finally, we agree with the Court of Claims that defendant failed to show that it was entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. 1 When defendant undertakes a “stud[y] [oí] a dangerous condition and determines … Thus, given the lack of evidence that defendant “ ‘passed on the very same question of risk,’ ” it was not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity (Ernest v Red Cr. Cent.

In re the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Silkman

121 A.D. 202 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 23, 1907

Young, who then qualified and who now account. . … This was clearly proper.

Bogoni v. Simpson

306 A.D.2d 125 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 17, 2003

Bogoni’s assertion that a reader of the notice would understand that it referred to him is clearly one that could only be resolved at trial. However, the notice in question was directed by Ms. … Only the latter establishes reckless disregard in a defamation action” ( 80 NY2d at 438 ). Nothing in the record here tends to establish that Ms.

Nelson v. X-Ray Systems, Inc.

46 A.D.2d 995 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 5, 1974

This constituted opinion evidence by a lay witness on the very issue to be decided by the jury and was clearly inadmissible (Hartley v. Szadkowski, 32 A D 2d 550). … We also note that the records of Brooks Hospital relating to plaintiff as a patient should have born the certification or authorization of the hospital or have been qualified by a witness as evidence admissible under the

Mack v. State of New York

2025 NY Slip Op 04282 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 24, 2025

Rather, "[b]ecause suits against the State are allowed only by the State's waiver of sovereign immunity and in derogation of the common law, statutory requirements conditioning suit must be strictly construed" ( Dreger v … [FN1] Put another way, to satisfy the pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 8-b (4), "[t]he allegations in the claim must be of such character that, if believed, they would clearly and convincingly establish the

Morris Cohon & Co. v. Russell

29 A.D.2d 221 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 15, 1968

Clearly, therefore, the statute applies (and the plaintiff does not contend otherwise on this appeal). This is in accordance with Minichiello v. … Here, clearly, the relied upon paragraph in the contract of sale does not meet the test.

Rosner v. Civil Service Commission

38 A.D.2d 628 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 15, 1971

As a possible alternative means of qualifying it was provided that “formal qualifications or certificates in a medical specialty granted by a professional board clearly equivalent to the certificate granted by the appropriate … Respondent adopted certain requirements which an applicant was required to satisfy to establish eligibility for a position.

Off Shore Rest. Corp. v. Linden

36 A.D.2d 948 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 3, 1971

The Municipal Code evinces a strong policy in favor of the establishment of off-street parking facilities and of the regulation of such facilities already in existence (Long Beach Municipal Code, §§ 9—113; 9-113.1 et seq. … Clearly, the increase in seating capacity contemplated by petitioner is within the purview of section 9-113.1.

People v. Lynch

85 A.D.2d 126 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 26, 1982

While the testimony concerning marihuana is clearly stronger than that establishing that phencyclidine was the substance sold to the witnesses, there is other corroborating evidence that the latter drug was sold to the witnesses … To qualify a heroin addict as an expert it is necessary to establish the number of times that he has used heroin.

Schlappendorf v. American Railway Traffic Co.

156 A.D. 369 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 30, 1913

It is clearly established by the testimony of Plank that after oné of the clips became loose and displaced, the entire cable pulled out of the clamp so that the bucket dropped on one side but the cable itself did not break … I know of no such interval of immunity.”. I think that these were questions for the determination of the jury.

People v. Bryant

153 A.D.2d 636 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 14, 1989

Having been granted immunity from prosecution, Austin appeared before the Grand Jury beginning in September of 1985, offering testimony regarding alleged bribes and unlawful gratuities given and/or received by the various … Clearly this evidence established that these defendants agreed to confer benefits upon a public servant upon an agreement pursuant to which that public servant’s actions were influenced (see, Penal Law former § 200.00; People

Holder v. Harlem Men's Shelter

205 A.D.2d 440 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 28, 1994

Indeed, even assuming *442 that plaintiff had otherwise offered sufficient evidence to withstand summary judgment, the record clearly demonstrates that defendant-appellant is not subject to such tortious liability. … Although the non-judicial nature of these discretionary decisions affords defendant only a qualified immunity, which does not shield actions made in bad faith or without reasonable basis (see, Arteaga v State of New York,

Rutledge v. Rockwells of Bedford, Inc.

200 A.D.2d 36 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 16, 1994

The defendant’s argument that the statute does not have extraterritorial impact based on the residence of the plaintiff is not supported by Goodwin v Young (supra), since the immunizing of the offending innkeeper based on … "[T]he importance of the crash site is clearly overshadowed by the location of the * * * sale of liquor” (Patton v Carnrike, 510 F Supp 625, 628 , supra).

In re the Real Estate of Wood

70 A.D. 321 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 15, 1902

Putman did not qualify as an executor. Said James F. … That section very clearly defines the nature and characteristics of the proof necessary to authorize a proceeding thereunder, and by its expression of the circumstances, under which such an application can be made very clearly

Rudder v. Pataki

246 A.D.2d 183 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 2, 1998

This must be determined at the outset of any litigation since standing is a threshold determination and a litigant must establish standing in order to seek judicial review, with the burden of establishing standing being on … Under this section an action against an officer or employee of the State challenging the expenditures or appropriations of its funds may be maintained, but unless the expenditures can be clearly traced to identifiable State

K.T. v. Dash

37 A.D.3d 107 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 14, 2006

The submitted material falls short of establishing that the difference between the law of New York and Brazil can be termed a “conflict.” … In these circumstances, where the parties were both New Yorkers, the Court has clearly concluded that there is no compelling reason to apply the foreign jurisdiction’s law.