Case law

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).

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.

New York County Lawyers' Ass'n v. Dacey

28 A.D.2d 161 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 24, 1967

Clearly, it was Dacey’s purpose to circumvent the effect of the Connecticut decree by substituting here a multiplicity of forms of legal instruments with particularized instructions as to each form so that they could be used … The advertisements stress the fact that Dacey “ believes that any literate, intelligent man or woman who can follow his book’s clearly outlined directions, will surely be capable of handling his or her estate.”

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.

In re Laura W.

160 A.D.2d 585 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 24, 1990

Contrary to the father’s contentions herein, substantial uncontradicted medical evidence established an enlarged vaginal opening wide enough to allow entrance of an adult finger and the absence of a hymen covering (see, e.g … In any event, the order was clearly warranted based on the record. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Ellerin, Wallach and Smith, JJ.

Katz v. Shapiro

62 A.D.2d 231 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 27, 1978

Petitioners argue that, since they receive no public funds and do not qualify as charitable, eleemosynary, correctional or reformatory institutions, they are not subject to regulation by the State Board of Social Welfare … The owner of private property does not acquire immunity against the valid exercise of the police power. We are dealing here with one of the most essential powers of government; one that is the least limitable.

Hoo v. forest Pharmaceuticals Inc.

225 A.D.2d 504 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 28, 1996

There should be preaction disclosure to aid in bringing an action including a claim for defamation, petitioner having alleged facts sufficient to establish a prima facie case therefor except for the requirement of CPLR 3016 … (a) that the particular words complained of be set forth, as to which the documents sought would clearly be helpful.

Spiegler v. Gerken Building Corp.

35 A.D.3d 715 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 19, 2006

Employers such as Allran who provide workers’ compensation coverage are immune from tort liability except in a narrow class of cases in which the plaintiff has sustained a “grave injury” (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 … Because Spiegler’s alleged injuries to his back, as described in his deposition testimony and as further amplified in his second supplemental verified bill of particulars, clearly do not fall within any of the enumerated

Gonnerman v. State

48 A.D.3d 517 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 13, 2008

Contrary to the State’s contention, copies of certificates of insurance, without more, are insufficient to establish the existence of coverage for the underlying accident. … Moreover, Merchants’ alternative contention that the main claim should be dismissed on the ground of qualified immunity is without merit, as Merchants failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter

Considar, Inc. v. Redi Corp. Establishment

238 A.D.2d 111 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 1, 1997

It is undisputed that defendant Redi Corporation Establishment (Establishment), a metal merchant, is a foreign corporation registered in Liechtenstein, and not qualified to do business in the State, thus satisfying one of … on its breach of contract claims because such claims are based on two alleged oral agreements for the sale of goods, * which are clearly unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds on sales (UCC 2-201 [1]) absent the requisite

People v. Kampshoff

53 A.D.2d 325 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 12, 1976

Easton testified under a grant of immunity. … The similarities between the crime charged and the crime sought to be introduced establish a strong connection between the two.

Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 2 of Towns of Ossining v. Pace College

27 A.D.2d 87 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 28, 1966

Is unimproved real property, purchased by a private institution of higher learning for the purpose of expanding its existing facilities, immune from condemnation by a local school board, which seeks to acquire the land for … In each of these decisions, the language of the court clearly indicates that possession by the resisting owner of a power like that of the petitioner is of paramount significance.

Matter of Lane v. DiNapoli

179 A.D.3d 1267 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 9, 2020

Clearly, petitioner's service in the merchant marine from 1966 to 1969 did not fall within the time parameters set forth in the statute. … Petitioner also failed to establish that his service aboard merchant vessels constituted active military duty as a Naval Reserve officer.

Rucker v. Blum

85 A.D.2d 918 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 23, 1981

“[T]he sole purpose of the provision is to indicate that, as with other eligibility requirements, the applicant rather than the State must establish that he did not leave employment for the purpose of qualifying for benefits … of section 131 of the Social Services Law is not simply to penalize people who quit their jobs in order to obtain welfare benefits but to deter people from leaving their jobs to obtain welfare benefits, a purpose which clearly

DiLeo v. Blumberg

250 A.D.2d 364 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 5, 1998

The affirmations of plaintiffs’ treating chiropractor detail the nature and degree of their injuries based on his physical examinations and tests, and the results of the latter clearly qualify as *366 “objectively measured … or quantified” limitations sufficient to establish a prima facie case of serious injury to defeat summary judgment (Parker v Defontaine-Stratton, 231 AD2d 412, 413 ; Deangelo v Marcia Serv.

Burkhardt v. Blum

77 A.D.2d 760 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 24, 1980

Contrary to the dissent’s position that *761 it was irrelevant, the medical report clearly had a bearing on the question of whether petitioner voluntarily terminated his employment for the purpose of qualifying for a greater … amount of assistance (see 18 NYCRR 385.7 [c]), for the medical report introduced by the local agency established that petitioner was capable of working full time.

Brown v. Phelan

223 A.D. 393 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 27, 1928

The accounting in 1913 clearly demonstrated mistakes on the part of said John J. … The record clearly negatives any such claim and establishes their gross and inexcusable negligence in permitting the looting of the estate by their cotrustee. They are legally responsible for his acts. In Adair v.

Rabushka v. Marks

229 A.D.2d 899 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 25, 1996

Defendants assert that Supreme Court erred in not dismissing the amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (11), which authorizes the dismissal of a complaint when a defendant is immune from liability pursuant to N-PCL … Thus, the determinative issue is whether plaintiffs established that defendants intended to cause them harm (Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3211:34a, at 50).

Bernardine v. City of New York

268 A.D. 444 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 15, 1944

We think, however, we do not ‘‘ go beyond the clearly expressed provisions of the act ” (2 Lewis’ Sutherland on Statutory Construction [2d ed.], § 547) when we hold that a horse used, as this police horse concededly was, … Plaintiff’s proof that the city’s horse was running away unattended on the public highway established prima facie proof of defendant’s negligence. In Hackett v. Lenox Sand & Gravel Co. ( 187 App.

James v. State

90 A.D.2d 342 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 17, 1982

Since decedent was not a party to this contract, his rights, if any, would stem from his ability to establish his status as a third-party beneficiary. … In that case, however, the action taken by defendants was clearly for the benefit of plaintiff..