Case law

Smith v. Morgan

253 A.D. 239 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 28, 1938

The phrase “ as designated in the permits 77 is placed in the ordinance immediately next to, and clearly qualifying and modifying the words “ fruits, vegetables, produce or other commodity 77 that may be sold, and it is as … The DeLucca case, affirmed in this court without opinion, is clearly not a precedent relevant here.

Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. State

295 A.D.2d 1 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 25, 2002

The absence of a clearly articulated level helps explain why neither the IAS court nor the dissent is able to determine what programs or what amounts of funding are needed, and why they can only say that more money will lead … qualified students.

Mccarty v. Lambley

20 A.D. 264 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 15, 1897

operation the rule that a person clothed with the authority, and charged with the delicate responsibilities which rested upon this defendant, may not only discharge a subordinate for dishonesty, but he may, with assurance of immunity … Or, in other words, that,.when their privileged character is established, as a matter of law, the burden is cast upon the plaintiff of establishing, as a matter of fact, the existence of express malice.

Romas v. County of Suffolk

2026 NY Slip Op 02142 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 8, 2026

and/or absolute governmental immunity for discretionary acts, among other things. … Where Highway Law § 139(2) is implicated, the burden is clearly on the plaintiff to establish whether an exception not explicitly accounted for in the statute applies, specifically that the county created the allegedly defective

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.

Rakowski v. New York State Department of Labor

243 A.D.2d 1020 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 30, 1997

Preservation & Dev., supra, at 134), we are compelled to find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that claimant failed to establish an accidental injury. … Furthermore, we reject claimant’s alternative assertion that her condition qualifies as an occupational disease inasmuch as the record clearly establishes that the condition did not arise from the nature of the work (see,

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.

In re Kaminsky

251 A.D. 132 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 12, 1937

It retains all the privileges, immunities and practices of the ancient Eastern or Byzantine rite, not inconsistent with the fundamental Christian faith of the Western or Latin Church. It uses the Byzantine liturgy. … Section 195 of the Religious Corporations Law provides that the trustees “ shall be elected from the qualified voters.”

People v. Colavito

126 A.D.2d 554 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 12, 1987

The evidence adduced at the trial was sufficient to establish that the defendant placed a loaded .32 caliber revolver in the victim’s back during the robbery, and stated to the victim "keep your head down, don’t turn around … qualify it as a dangerous instrument (cf.

Solow v. City of New York

49 A.D.2d 414 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 25, 1975

The fact that a greater profit would result if the R6 zone were retained does not establish the R5 zoning as confiscatory where such zoning permits a reasonable return. … Clearly that is not the case here and nothing in the record warrants classifying the board’s action as such.

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.

Scott v. Village of Saratoga Springs

131 A.D. 347 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 10, 1909

The title to this act clearly indicates the object of the act to amend the charter, and that the amendment in particular relates to the commission and its duties. … It is conceded that the Legislature cannot arbitrarily establish exclusions from office.

Meckes v. Cina

75 A.D.2d 470 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 10, 1980

The plain language of the lump-sum benefit provision calling for lump-sum benefits to an employee "whose employment with an Employer is terminated” clearly suggests that an employee must sever all ties with an employer before … he qualifies for the benefit.

Derfner Management, Inc. v. Lenhill Realty Corp.

90 A.D.3d 434 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 6, 2011

However, defendants failed to establish that they could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered plaintiffs alleged fraud earlier (see Lucas-Plaza Hous. Dev. … The corporate defendants clearly have a right to their own books and records.

Pritchard v. Curtis

101 A.D.3d 1502 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 27, 2012

They did not establish how this qualified as newly-discovered evidence, as they did not explain why this opinion could not have been procured in response to the motion for summary judgment a year earlier (see Maddux v Schur … That document was only used to prove an ancillary fact that was since established by other evidence.

Magi Communications, Inc. v. Jac-Lu Associates

65 A.D.2d 727 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 21, 1978

Those cases, however, are clearly distinguishable and do not support Special Term’s disposition. … A nonrecourse note would not qualify. (See, 1977 CCH US Master Tax Guide §§ 353, 373.)

Militrano v. Lederle Laboratories

26 A.D.3d 475 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 28, 2006

The infant plaintiff, Bruce Militrano, suffered a seizure within hours of being administered a dose of Tetramune, a combination vaccine immunizing children against diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis, as well as haemophilus … made safe” (id.; emphasis supplied), appears to leave open the possibility of a design defect claim with respect to vaccines covered by the Vaccine Act, the balance of the House *477 Committee’s discussion of the issue clearly

In re the Estate of Kimmey

273 A.D. 142 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 7, 1948

Letters testamentary were issued to said three executors, all of whom qualified. Thereafter, and on December 20, 1946, W. Howard Spellman died intestate and Mary K. … great probative force, which clearly establishes every element of a valid gift, viz., that the decedent intended to divest himself of the title in favor of the donee and accompanied his intent by a delivery of the subject

People v. Bob

233 A.D. 94 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 24, 1931

The district attorney opposed the motion, contending that a disclosure to the defendant, respondent, Jubien would result in the minutes being made public and available to the other two defendants who were clearly not entitled … The defendant, respondent, Jubien testified before the grand jury under a waiver of immunity.

Lapidus v. State

57 A.D.3d 83 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 28, 2008

Thus, to hold the State liable for negligence, a claimant must establish the elements of a negligence claim, which are the existence of a duty, a breach of that duty, and that such breach was a proximate cause of the events … sentenced to a term of 10 days under the 1987 assault in the second degree charge, and resentenced to a term of 1 to 3 years, nunc pro tunc, on the 1998 criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree conviction, clearly