Case law

Nussbaum v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

74 A.D.2d 782 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 13, 1980

Plan A permits members to retire upon completion of 25 years of allowable qualifying service, or attainment of age 55, whichever is later. Plan B, however, contains no minimum qualifying service requirement. … Since there are clearly no material or triable issues of fact, Special Term erred in denying defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment (Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395, 404 ).

Matter of Montgomery v. New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Servs.

192 A.D.3d 1437 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 25, 2021

Thereafter, two separate promotion eligibility lists were established, one for Correction Sergeant and the other for Correction Sergeant (Spanish Language). … Here, in contrast, there are and always have been two separate lists — one list for all those who took the exam and were thus presumably qualified for the position of Correction Sergeant, and another list for those qualified

Blair v. Scimone

26 A.D.2d 751 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 20, 1966

The arrangement in the ease before us seems to fit within this not too exacting definition, but if it should not be deemed to qualify thereunder, it would seem clearly within the intendment of a joint venture, “as a ‘special … Neither were the essential elements of the defenses, including that of fraud, established by the proof before the trial court.

Snyder v. Wetzler

193 A.D.2d 329 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 10, 1993

New York Indians, 72 US [5 Wall] 761), the Federal Indian trader statutes ( 25 USC § 261 et seq.), and section 6 of the Indian Law all establish that New York lacks legal authority to tax any transactions on the Cattaraugus … We find the treaty clearly refers only to taxes levied upon real property or land.

Bowen v. State Commission of Correction

104 A.D.2d 238 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 20, 1984

As stated by the United States Supreme Court, “A municipal corporation, created by a state * * * has no privileges or *240 immunities under the federal constitution which it may invoke in opposition to the will of its creator … Since the record otherwise establishes a rational basis for the commission’s determination, it should have been confirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey and Weiss, JJ., concur.

Craft v. Capital District Regional Off Track Betting Corp.

107 A.D.2d 952 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 24, 1985

Clearly then, plaintiff was on notice that the pertinent lottery rules and regulations were determinative of the prize awarded. *954 As indicated above, the rules and regulations relative to alternate first prize awards were … Since plaintiff held two of the 10 qualifying tickets, he was entitled to and received $27,852 (less certain tax deductions).

Jeanty v. State of New York

2019 NY Slip Op 6333 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 22, 2019

Apts. , 125 AD3d 85 , 88-91 [4th Dept 2015]), and it is equally well established that such affidavits and materials will warrant dismissal under that provision if they " establish conclusively that [the] plaintiff has no … The only provisions of CPL 440.10 (1) that so qualify are paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (e), and (g) thereof ( see § 8-b [3] [b] [ii] [A]).

Parks v. Steinbrenner

131 A.D.2d 60 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 23, 1987

While the subjective and emotional character of such sentiments is commonly recognized and construed as "opinion” rather than fact, that view is expressly emphasized upon a reading of the entire press release with its qualifying … So long as the opinion is accompanied by a recitation of the facts upon which it is based it is deemed a "pure opinion” and is afforded complete immunity even though the facts do not support the opinion.

People v. Avilla

212 A.D.2d 800 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 27, 1995

Its determination should be afforded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88 ). … , this situation does not constitute an "impairment of integrity” of the Grand Jury process pursuant to CPL 210.35 (5) and qualify for the exceptional remedy of dismissal of the indictment (see, People v Darby, 75 NY2d 449

Boyle v. 42nd Street Development Project, Inc.

38 A.D.3d 404 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 27, 2007

The accident clearly falls within the purview of the statute inasmuch as plaintiff was struck by a falling object that had been inadequately secured (Outar v City of New York, 5 NY3d 731 [2005]; see also Tavarez v Sea-Cargoes … The record further establishes that the rods were part of the installation of a staircase. This was an integral part of the construction work in progress.

Burns v. City of New York

6 A.D.2d 30 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 20, 1958

clearly that the officer was not engaged in the discharge of police duties. … Liability is the rule, immunity the exception.

General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp. v. Krieghbaum

46 A.D.2d 713 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 31, 1974

While there is no unquestioned proof as to the actual cause of Katherine’s death, if the opinion testimony was properly admitted, there is strong evidence to establish that Katherine was a hit and run victim. … The opinion evidence supplied by the County Coroner and the Chief of Police of the Town of Lake George at the time of the incident clearly supports the finding that Katherine was a hit and run victim.

Erlanger v. Regents of University

256 A.D. 444 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 8, 1939

This section was only intended by the Legislature to apply to exceptional cases where the merit of the applicant is clearly established to the satisfaction of the Regents. The burden of proof is upon the applicant. … An examination of the record clearly demonstrates that such is not the fact. The answers clearly show that the decision was not based on that ground.

Hernandez v. Lancaster

52 A.D.3d 296 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 10, 2008

implying that there is no such immunity for facilities above the ground floor in a multiple dwelling that is not fireproof. … As ECB found, petitioner did not qualify as one “directly and adversely affected” by ECB’s order; the NOV involved only the imposition of a monetary penalty against the named respondent, the landlord (see ECB Adjudication

Ferguson v. Mantell

216 A.D.2d 160 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 22, 1995

As such, the grate clearly qualified as a "special use” for defendants, which in turn obligated them to maintain said grate (see, e.g., Hughes v City of New York, 236 NYS2d 446 , affd 25 AD2d 617 , lv denied 18 NY2d 577 ) … As the evidence demonstrates that defendants were negligent in maintaining the grate and thereby failed to prevent the accident, defendants’ liability was clearly established.

Chalpin v. Amordian Press, Inc.

128 A.D.2d 81 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 19, 1987

The rationale for this immunity, as set forth in Gertz v Robert Welch, Inc. ( 418 US 323, 339-340 ) is that: "Under the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea. *85 However pernicious an opinion may seem, we … From a reading of the contract itself, which is set forth in its entirety in the record, it appears that this statement is clearly a substantial and material misrepresentation of fact.

Willits & Patterson v. Abekobei & Co.

197 A.D. 528 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 1, 1921

It is shown that the amount of fatty acids is determined by chemical analysis and it is not apparent how the net landed weight can in any way qualify the description. … It is not necessary to discuss the question as to the rights of the plaintiff to establish his cause of action by supplementary affidavits, as that right does not seem to be challenged in the respondent’s brief, and is clearly

Colt v. Nathan Littauer Hosp.

2025 NY Slip Op 01690 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 20, 2025

"Materials that clearly qualify as documentary evidence include documents such as . . . contracts, and any other papers, the contents of which are essentially undeniable" ( Carr v Wegmans Food Mkts., Inc. , 182 AD3d 667, … ), defendant clearly had the right to require plaintiff to comply with the vaccination policy.

In re Proving the Last Will & Testament of Burbank

104 A.D. 312 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 15, 1905

It is clear, therefore, in the present casej that although the intention of the testatrix to revoke her will was clearly expressed and' expressed-in' writing, it is not expressed conformably to the statute, and the writing … I am clearly of opinion that this objection is well founded.”

People ex rel. Romano v. Thayer

229 A.D. 687 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 16, 1930

examiners, or a qualified examiner and a qualified psychologist, made after an examination by them of the alleged mental defective.” … The policy of the law seems clearly to be that one who is directly committed to said institution as a mental defective delinquent, as relator was, is committed for an indefinite term and until paroled by the superintendent