Case law

Sansone v. Cavallaro

284 A.D.2d 817 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 28, 2001

In order to qualify for bank financing to make improvements to the motel, defendant was required to satisfy plaintiffs’ mortgage and, to that end, he offered plaintiffs a lump-sum payment of $40,000, later increased to $45,000 … Additionally, both notices of default and acceleration clearly gave defendant the required 30-day period in which to cure his default. *819 Next, defendant contends that since negotiations regarding lump-sum satisfaction

In re the Estate of Meyer

98 A.D. 7 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 15, 1904

It stands undisputed that the respondent Meyer qualified and entered upon the duties of his office as executor and received and took possession of the property of the testator. … It is not necessary that we examine them all, as they are clearly distinguishable.

People v. Le Grand

76 A.D.2d 706 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 29, 1980

The prosecution’s chief witness, however, was Frank Holman who, having been granted immunity, testified as to his observations on the night of the crimes and described the assistance he gave to defendant Devernon Le Grand … Clearly, this was not an instance where a broad attempt is made to discredit the accused by showing his affiliation with a group held in general disfavor by the community. (Cf. People v Kenyatta, 17 AD2d 659 .)

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]).

Acropolis Gardens Realty Corp. v. Department of Housing Preservation & Development of New York

175 A.D.2d 242 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 22, 1991

It is well established that " '[the] courts should not disturb the agency’s determination * * * in the absence of a clear [determination] that it is arbitrary and unreasonable in terms of the purpose of the J-51 program’ … Clearly, HPD properly evaluated the petitioner’s application and made a reasoned and rational decision in denying these tax benefits. Lawrence, J. P., Eiber, Balletta and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Tillman v. Ogren

182 A.D. 672 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 5, 1918

liable to pay over the said sum of $3,155.19 to the plaintiff, except such portion, if any, of said sum as at the decease of said Lars Erickson had been by him disposed of, but that the burden was upon the plaintiff to establish … Applying this general rule to the clause in question, in my opinion, it clearly does not meet the test.

People v. Renaghan

40 A.D.2d 150 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 28, 1972

The People’s case was established through the testimony of Laurence Whittemore, the Grand Jury Foreman, and the Grand *152 Jury minutes of defendant’s May 21, 1970 appearance. … The defendant did not object to the admission of his testimony before the Grand Jury and offered to stipulate that he had been granted immunity.

Hill v. International Products Co.

198 A.D. 591 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 18, 1921

It is urged that this case is clearly distinguishable from Helme v. Buckelew (supra) and that the greater portion of the opinion had no relevancy to the facts of that case. It is true that in Helme v. … It is solely to establish, so far as this defendant is concerned, the liability of Theodore N. Vail’s executor for the acts of the testator.

National Bank of North America v. DeLuxe Poster Co.

51 A.D.2d 582 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 26, 1976

Clearly, the section is intended to give qualified assignees the protection generally accorded to a holder in due course. … Accordingly, should plaintiff establish that it is entitled to the preferred status accorded certain assignees under subdivision (1) of section 9-206, it cannot be affected by any limitation of its rights arising out of a

Myszczenko v. City of Poughkeepsie

239 A.D.2d 584 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 27, 1997

Alcohol dependency qualifies as a disability under the Human Rights Law (see, Matter of McEniry v Landi, supra, at 557) and where, as here, the petitioner establishes a prima facie case that the conduct which formed the basis … The facts at bar are clearly distinguishable from those in Matter of McEniry v Landi (supra).

People v. Britton

2023 NY Slip Op 00779 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 10, 2023

That statute "was [*2]not designed to immunize a defendant from the operations of [a] law enforcement official's investigatory use of fingerprints" ( People v Pate , 182 AD2d 717, 718 [2d Dept 1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 836 … "[O]ffers of proof must be made clearly and unambiguously" ( People v Williams , 6 NY2d 18, 23 [1959], cert denied 361 US 920 [1959], rearg denied 10 NY2d 1011 [1961]; see Breheny , 270 AD2d at 927 ), and inasmuch as defendant

Kurshan v. Townhouse Management Co.

223 A.D.2d 402 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 16, 1996

Nor did the testimony of the process server demonstrate that the alleged "office manager” was qualified to accept service (Raschel v Rish, 69 NY2d 694 ) either on behalf of the partnership or any of the defendant partners … Finally, the court’s examination of the process server was proper since it was clearly undertaken to focus and clarify the testimony with respect to the manner in which service was attempted. Concur—Sullivan, J.

Burkhart v. People, Inc.

129 A.D.3d 1475 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 12, 2015

The parties agree that the group home operated by defendant does not qualify as a nursing home. … institutions “serving principally as facilities . . . for the rendering of health-related service” (§ 2800 [emphasis added]), and the provisions of the article relate specifically to hospitals and nursing homes, institutions that clearly

Pascarella v. City of New York

146 A.D.2d 61 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 16, 1989

The law is well settled that "[p]ublic entities remain immune from negligence claims arising out of the performance of their governmental functions, including police protection, unless the injured person establishes a special … Clearly, individuals who elect to join the uniformed services do so with knowledge of the dangers attendant upon those occupations and the distinct possibility that they might be hurt in the course of their employment.

Simpson v. New York City Transit Authority

112 A.D.2d 89 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 18, 1985

These provisions prohibit the unauthorized use of a person’s name, portrait or picture for advertising or trade purposes, circumstances which are clearly inapplicable here. … The court in Oklahoma City v Tuttle (supra), further held that proof of a "single incident” of objectionable conduct by a municipality is insufficient to establish the existence of a municipal "policy” for section 1983 purposes

Crocker-Wheeler Co. v. Genesee Recreation Co.

160 A.D. 373 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 7, 1914

On the other hand, the contrary is thus clearly established, and plaintiff was entitled to the direction requested. … All other matters were adjusted and the retention of the money clearly was on account of such generators.

Kipp v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

41 A.D. 298 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 15, 1899

She was at liberty to offer any evidence, which she could, to contradict or qualify the statements therein contained. … This argument, however, has no force in the case at. bar, for it was clearly proven by the testimony of a witness in whose family the insured had worked, that in the latter part of 1894 she told him she had asthma and heart

People v. Cona

60 A.D.2d 318 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 9, 1978

Thus, there was clearly an evidentiary showing that Buchalski, within the purview of paragraph (b) of subdivision 2 of CPL 60.22, "based upon * * * some of the same facts or conduct which constitute the offense charged”, … O’Brien’s complicity in these acts rendered him criminally liable and therefore established his status as an accomplice.

Kolenda v. Incorporated Vil. of Garden City

2023 NY Slip Op 01783 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 5, 2023

"Because this prior written notice provision is a limited waiver of sovereign immunity, in derogation of common law, it is strictly construed" ( Katz v City of New York , 87 NY2d 241, 243 ; see Gorman v Town of Huntington … On this record, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether any documents to or from other municipal employees found their way to the Village Board of Trustees so as to cognizably qualify as prior