Case law

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

413 Throop, LLC v. Triumph, the Church of the New Age

153 A.D.3d 1306 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 20, 2017

An unambiguous contract provision may qualify as documentary evidence under CPLR 3211 (a) (1) (see Wilson v Poughkeepsie City Sch. … Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that the defendant had conclusively established as a matter of law that the disputed provision in the contract clearly and unambiguously limited the purchaser’s remedy in the event

Bartley v. City of New York

102 A.D. 23 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 1, 1905

law of the State compelled a submission of the case to a jury if the circumstances were such that different inferences might reasonably be deduced upon the question of the plaintiff’s blame, but set the verdict aside as a qualified … To affirm the order in this case is to grant immunity to municipal neglect in defiance of settled and long-established law. I recommend a reversal of the order and the restoration of the jury’s verdict.

Department of Personnel v. City Civil Service Commission

128 A.D.2d 426 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 12, 1987

The Commission concluded that no evidence had been adduced to establish that Latorre, either directly or indirectly, participated in the preparation and submission of the Westchester Community College transcript and, in the … It clearly appears that the degree candidate form was personally completed by respondent, wherein he claimed 62 transfer credits, which he knew he did not have.

Sharapata v. Town of Islip

82 A.D.2d 350 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 20, 1981

However, he argued that recent appellate authority exists which sustains the imposition of such damages if it can be established that a governmental agency acted in a grossly negligent manner by failing to supervise agents … Waiver of immunity from liability.

People v. Katz

154 A.D. 44 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 20, 1912

She after-wards attempted to qualify this by saying that she meant with respect to details. She was subpoenaed by the People, but not sworn, on the trial of Persch. … Of course, if *63 the corroborating evidence were sufficient, in itself, to establish the guilt of the defendant, a conviction might stand.

Gautier v. Pro-Football, Inc.

278 A.D. 431 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 29, 1951

In defining this phrase, the cases have established categories of immunity and liability. … Media for the dissemination of news — and that includes television and radio, as well as the press in its various forms — clearly are not precluded by section 51 of the Civil Rights Law from publishing or depicting matters

Claim of Amoah v. Mallah Management, LLC

57 A.D.3d 29 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 30, 2008

In addition, to qualify for the back pay, the worker would have been required to remain in this country illegally and, in order to mitigate damages, find future employment—both of which would have required a future violation … Furthermore, the Court in Hoffman noted that Congress could not have “ ‘intended to compel employers to retain persons in their employ regardless of their unlawful conduct,—to invest those who go on strike with an immunity

California Suites, Inc. v. Russo Demolition Inc.

98 A.D.3d 144 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 31, 2012

Since the record conclusively establishes that plaintiff received notice of the proposed demolition, its due process claim is without foundation. … Having laid bare their proof on the issue of notice by presenting opposing evidence and disputing its import and effect, the parties clearly invited the motion court to resolve the question based on their submissions (see

Curren v. Carbonic Systems, Inc.

58 A.D.3d 1104 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 29, 2009

Without proof of malice, the qualified common interest privilege protects the statements made by Kathy Casey to Carbonic employees. … Unless an employment agreement establishes a fixed duration, the employment is presumed to be at will, terminable at any time by either party (see Rooney v Tyson, 91 NY2d 685, 689 [1998]; Matter of De Petris v Union Settlement

Donohue v. Losito

141 A.D.2d 691 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 20, 1988

Clearly, neither of these conditions was satisfied in the instant case. … Since the contents of the report do not otherwise qualify under a hearsay exception, the statements contained therein were not admissible for their truth (see, Toll v State of New York, supra, at 49-50).

Grant v. Pratt & Lambert

87 A.D. 490 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 1, 1903

Thereupon the plaintiff, to establish his cause of action, read from the printed record that portion of the plaintiff’s case given upon the former trial which tended to establish the making of the contract and the breach … It is made clearly to appear in the present record that such assumption was unwarranted, and it was made so to appear in the court below.

Baldwin v. Cablevision Systems Corp.

65 A.D.3d 961 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 29, 2009

Plaintiff has clearly not made the requisite showing that the reasons offered by Cablevision for each of these selections were pretextual. … Based on their credentials, the successful candidates were as qualified as, if not more qualified than, plaintiff.

People v. Mims

178 A.D.2d 178 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 10, 1991

The value of this merchandise was established through the testimony of the general manager of the company that defendant had allegedly burglarized. … Clearly, the witness was qualified. (See, People v Solomon, 124 AD2d 840 .)

Todd Shipyards Corp. v. State Tax Commission

52 A.D.2d 126 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 13, 1976

Clearly, the costs of tangible personal property and services by one engaged in the repair of vessels engaged in interstate and foreign commerce are taxable under section 1105 of the Tax Law. … To hold otherwise would be tantamount to immunizing all drydocks and shipyards from sales and use taxes in connection with all materials, supplies and services used by them in their business.

Carbonaro v. Bahou

92 A.D.2d 1055 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 24, 1983

Both examinations were administered on June 20, 1981, and petitioners qualified for and took the promotional examination. … Clearly, the series of letters on this matter which they sent to respondent Bahou, the president of the Civil Service Commission, does not constitute such an appeal and the record is devoid of any evidence that the entire

Reader's Digest Ass'n v. State Tax Commission

103 A.D.2d 926 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 12, 1984

Respondent determined that only the functions of printing labels and personalization of mailing pieces by the computer constituted processing within the definition of the statute, and that “petitioner has failed to establish … Standing alone, the combination of these two functions clearly does not satisfy the principal use test.

People v. Zigles

116 A.D.2d 610 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 13, 1986

The prosecution clearly demonstrated that the officer who administered the test was qualified to do so, and that the test was properly performed in accordance with existing regulations. … It was also established that the chemicals used were of the proper kind and mixed in the proper proportions.