Case law

Guenther v. Ridgway Co.

187 A.D. 593 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 5, 1919

That case, it would seem, extends the qualified privilege beyond the bounds hitherto set and observed by the courts. … The affidavits, however, on the contrary did not establish the truth of a single statement of the article. It did not prove that Guenther was prosecuted by anybody.

Rivet v. Burdick

255 A.D. 131 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 28, 1938

January 31, .1938, the duly qualified electors of the town of Webb, a town of the second class, located in Herkimer county and in the Adirondack Park, authorized the town board to purchase several parcels of land in the town … Section 220 of article XIV of the Town Law indicates quite clearly that once a resolution is adopted at a special or biennial election the town board must take affirmative action to put the resolution into effect.

Claim of Forte v. Eastman Kodak Co.

27 A.D.2d 15 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 23, 1966

The rationale, as well as the effect of the board’s decision, is to equate or to treat as interdependent the terms ‘ ‘ employment ’ ’ and ‘ ‘ eligibility ’ ’ when the statute clearly and repeatedly treats them as separate … rights to benefits thus established by terminating the employment.

Bidnick v. Grand Lodge of Free & Accepted Masons of the State of N.Y.

2018 NY Slip Op 1591 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 14, 2018

Whether a plaintiff can ultimately establish its allegations is not part of the calculus in determining a motion to dismiss" ( EBC I, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs & Co., 5 NY3d 11, 19 [citation omitted]). … immunity have merit.

In re Moskovitz

169 A.D. 527 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 5, 1915

It follows that his affidavit in that regard was false, and that at the time he applied for admission to practice he had not qualified himself as required by the rules. … It is, therefore, clearly established that at the time the respondent applied for admission to the bar he was not legally qualified, and that his lack of qualification was covered up and concealed by the false affidavits

Scandell v. Columbia Construction Co.

50 A.D. 512 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 15, 1900

The testimony on the part of the plaintiff tended to establish that the pin should have been keyed in position so as not to permit of its moving. … The fact of negligence must be established, either by the facts themselves or the legitimate inferences to be derived therefrom. The rule in this respect is clearly stated in Dobbins v. Brown ( 119 N.

Acciavatti v. Levitt

57 A.D.2d 131 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 21, 1977

Respondent, on the other hand, contends that the policeman has the burden of proving that his disabling heart disease was proximately caused by a single event which qualifies as an accident. … From our analysis of sections 363 and 363-a, together with its amendments, we are of the view that the Legislature clearly intended that a policeman must establish, among other things, that the disability is the proximate

Hoeppner v. Dunkirk Printing Co.

227 A.D. 130 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 7, 1929

Therefore, there is no special immunity to the author. It is incapable of being a libel, because it is not a defamation of one’s character. … (supra) as follows: “The principle is clearly stated by Bayley, J., in Whit-taker v.

Norment v. Interfaith Center

98 A.D.3d 955 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 12, 2012

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, there is a reasonable probability that the plaintiff can prove that the defendant Brock was grossly negligent or intended to cause her harm and, thus, Brock is not entitled to the qualified … immunity of Not-For-Profit Corporation Law § 720-a (see CPLR 3211 [a] [11]; Well v Yeshiva Rambam, 300 AD2d 580, 581 [2002]).

Norment v. Interfaith Center

98 A.D.3d 955 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 12, 2012

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, there is a reasonable probability that the plaintiff can prove that the defendant Brock was grossly negligent or intended to cause her harm and, thus, Brock is not entitled to the qualified … immunity of Not-For-Profit Corporation Law § 720-a (see CPLR 3211 [a] [11]; Well v Yeshiva Rambam, 300 AD2d 580, 581 [2002]).

Matter of Attorney for The Children v. Barbara N.

152 A.D.3d 903 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 13, 2017

This testimony clearly demonstrated a change in circumstances, and Family Court properly proceeded with a best interests analysis (see Matter of Quick v Quick, 227 AD2d 666, 667 [1996]). … However, as set forth above, each of these witnesses was properly qualified to offer expert testimony.

Claim of McMillan v. Police Dogs, Inc.

52 A.D.2d 369 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 3, 1976

The threshold question presented is whether a stepchild is required to show dependency to qualify for death benefits. A "child”, of course, is not so required (Matter of Schechter v State Ins. … Thus a separate grouping is clearly indicated.

Cove Hollow Farm, Inc. v. State of New York Tax Commission

146 A.D.2d 49 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 23, 1989

Proof of a scheme to sell multiple parcels in a single transaction only serves to establish the existence of an agreement or plan required for purposes of aggregation; it is not a separate requirement (see, Matter of Bombart … proof of an intent to effectuate a single sale through multiple transfers in order to aggregate, the sales of separate parcels improved with residences to individual transferees for their respective use as such would be immune

N. J. Henry Mfg. Co. v. Henry Screen Mfg. Co.

204 A.D. 27 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 22, 1922

Those cases, however, clearly indicate that defendant’s right to its corporate name is in no wise affected by the fact that one of its incorporators bears the name of Henry. … The defendant derives no immunity from the fact that the name of “ Henry ” is in its corporate name. (Higgins Co. v. Higgins Soap Co., supra.)

Christenson v. Gutman

249 A.D.2d 805 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 23, 1998

Therefore, plaintiffs’ conclusory and speculative allegations that defendants acted with malice were insufficient to overcome this qualified privilege (see, id,., at 849). … In their motion to amend, plaintiffs clearly failed to meet their burden of establishing that they suffered severe emotional distress as a result of defendants’ actions (see, id., at 727-728 ).

People v. Dordal

55 A.D.2d 787 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 23, 1976

In this instance documentary evidence in the record clearly establishes that in 1972 in the State of California defendant was convicted of robbery in the second degree, a crime for which a sentence in excess of one year was … Such being the case, the statutory prerequisites cited above have been established, and defendant was properly adjudged to be a second felony offender.

People v. Reaves

2025 NY Slip Op 05107 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 24, 2025

Under the circumstances of this case, we find that the People failed to establish that their proffered expert witness was qualified to render an expert opinion as to the meaning of the rap lyrics. … qualified to interpret the meaning of rap music lyrics"]; cf.

J. Beres & Sons Dairy, Inc. v. Barber

75 A.D.2d 930 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 8, 1980

, gasoline station or a similar mercantile establishment offering goods and/or services at retail to individual consumers. … Clearly, if the Saville Market purchases, handles or sells milk, it is a milk dealer under the Agriculture and Markets Law.

Aldridge v. Kelly

157 A.D.2d 716 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 16, 1990

one offense are in the main clearly distinguishable from those establishing the *718 other”. … Thus, not only are the elements of the two offenses different, but "the acts establishing one offense are in the main clearly distinguishable from those establishing the other” (CPL 40.20 [2] [a]; Blockburger v United States

Matter of Rodriguez v. Rodriguez

2026 NY Slip Op 02841 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 6, 2026

"A family offense petition may be dismissed . . . where the petition fails to set forth factual allegations which, if proved, would establish that the respondent has committed a qualifying family offense" ( Matter of Hogan … determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the hearing court, and its determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great weight on appeal unless clearly