Case law

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.

DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Spitzer

26 A.D.3d 88 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 1, 2005

In the absence of this qualifying phrase, a consumer could establish the repair presumption by simply proving that the same defect was subject to four repair attempts, even if the fourth repair was successful. … This persistence—no matter what the motivation—does not make such consumers any less eligible under this presumption, which is clearly established as of the fourth failed repair attempt.

Pimentel v. Citibank, N.A.

29 A.D.3d 141 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 16, 2006

Nor did she suggest any alternative positions for which she was qualified, much less for which a vacancy existed at the time. … Clearly, under that reading, the defendant complied with its own policies by keeping the plaintiffs prior job as CFA open and available to her.

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.”

Ames v. Manhattan Life Insurance

31 A.D. 180 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 1, 1898

It appears, therefore, that at the foundation of the defense lies the application for the policy, and the defendant has no standing to establish either of the facts which it relies upon to relieve itself from the liability … Whether those answers and qualifications were very material does not clearly appear and is not in our judgment of the slightest importance.

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

People v. Martin

240 A.D.2d 5 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 10, 1998

Moreover, these officers’ testimony was not the only evidence establishing defendant’s possession of a handgun. … That situation clearly is distinguishable from the instant case. Nor do we read People v Baxley ( 84 NY2d 208 ) as broadly as does the dissent to require vacatur.

People v. Edwards

16 A.D.3d 226 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 17, 2005

The credible evidence established that defendant, using great force, kicked the fallen victim in the elbow, a vulnerable part of the body, causing dislocation and severe damage. … Thus, the statute clearly contemplates sua sponte submissions, and we find that this was an appropriate case for such an exercise of the discretion expressly vested in the trial court.

Applebee v. State

284 A.D. 532 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 8, 1954

Y. 691 ) are both clearly distinguishable on the facts. … Assuming such a duty on the part of such an individual defendant, and that his negligence was clearly established by the proof, it would still be a question of fact for the jury to determine whether or not his negligence

Kaur v. New York State Urban Development Corp.

72 A.D.3d 1 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 3, 2009

The petitioners clearly demonstrate that Columbia also let water infiltration conditions in property it acquired go unaddressed, even when minor and economically rational repairs could arrest deterioration. … The statutory definition does refer to educational uses, but the final clause “or other civic purposes” clearly restricts the educational purposes qualifying for a civic project to only such educational purposes as constitute

English v. City of Albany

235 A.D.2d 977 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 30, 1997

Court, we nonetheless find the end result supportable for the reasons articulated by the Court of Appeals in Ferres v New Rochelle ( 68 NY2d 446, 453 ), where it held that General Obligations Law § 9-103 does not provide immunity … It is urged that the risk was clearly apparent and reasonably foreseeable.

Berni v. Leonard

40 A.D.2d 701 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 24, 1972

This argument seems to me to be clearly specious, because petitioners here, by being denied the opportunity to take the sergeant’s examination, are limited to an examination that makes them eligible for only two openings … supervise, fails because if, in fact, this results in denial to them of an opportunity for a supervisory job for which they are qualified, the effect is still discriminatory.

Reverse Mtge. Solutions, Inc. v. Miglucci

2024 NY Slip Op 05171 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 17, 2024

Thus, plaintiff was clearly in a position to learn of decedent's death prior to the assignment. … Even accepting that statement as true, it is an insufficient premise to bestow the protection of immunity from the statute of limitations, as the record is otherwise devoid of any proof establishing that plaintiff is the

Matter of O'Reilly v. Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y.

2023 NY Slip Op 00957 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 21, 2023

response" after vaccination "due to preexisting immune conditions." … As the court there determined, that action "could clearly be characterized as misconduct, if not a crime.

Cotterell v. State of New York

129 A.D.3d 653 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 3, 2015

To meet this burden, the plaintiff must show that (1) he or she is a member of a protected class; (2) he or she was qualified to hold the position; (3) he or she was terminated from employment or suffered another adverse … The burden then shifts to the employer “to rebut the presumption of discrimination by clearly setting forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence, legitimate, independent, and nondiscriminatory reasons to support

People v. Reiser

240 A.D. 36 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 23, 1934

By act of grace on the part of the State he was immune from prosecution or punishment. When these facts appeared it was the duty of the trial judge to direct his discharge. … Not only did the indictment contain no such allegation but the proof established that appellant was not within the exception.

Landon v. Austin

88 A.D.3d 1127 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 20, 2011

exemption and did not extensively address the threshold issue of whether defendant’s purportedly commercial use of the property precluded application of the exemption altogether, defendant’s entitlement to the exemption clearly … was in issue and, as noted previously, as the party seeking to invoke its protection, defendant bore the burden of establishing, among other things, that the roofing work performed by plaintiff was not being undertaken for

Donato v. County of Schenectady

156 A.D.2d 859 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 21, 1989

The moving papers contained the affidavits of Bliss and of a civil engineer qualified as an expert in matters of highway design and highway and traffic safety. … In opposition, plaintiff submitted the affidavit of a qualified expert, formerly chief engineer of DOT.