Case law

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. Crimi

137 A.D.2d 702 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 16, 1988

Initially, we note that those statements which the defendant sought to introduce did not constitute an integral part of his codefendant’s plea allocution, nor was their content clearly opposed to the declarant’s interest … Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 ), we find the evidence was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt.

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

Claim of Eretza v. Fort Montgomery Iron Works

193 A.D. 817 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 18, 1920

It is to be noted that section 68 of the statute is qualified by the provision “ except as provided by this chapter.” … But there is clearly an entire lack of competent evidence to prove dependency, and for this reason the award should be reversed. All concur; John M. Kellogg, P. J., in the result. Award reversed and claim dismissed.

Watson v. City of Jamestown

56 A.D.2d 1289 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 21, 2008

In addition, they established that they did not use process to gain an advantage at the civil service hearing. … We agree with defendants that they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to plaintiffs arrest inasmuch as it was “objectively reasonable for the defendants to have believed that their conduct as related to the plaintiff

In re First Report of the June 1993 Grand Jury

209 A.D.2d 900 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 23, 1994

The report reaches certain factual conclusions which clearly indicate that the Grand Jury made credibility assessments, rejecting some of respondent’s testimony in favor of that given by others. … Initially, we are of the view that the scope of respondent’s waiver of immunity is irrelevant to the issue of whether the report must be sealed, but instead bears only on the admissibility of his testimony in a future proceeding

Berenson v. Town of New Castle

67 A.D.2d 506 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 23, 1979

housing goals, unless the town is able to establish compelling reasons for denial. … Obviously, *511 New Castle, a town of over 17,000 people, would not be so small as to qualify as but one 'use’ district.

Krichmar v. Krichmar

48 A.D.2d 515 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 7, 1975

In that year, Gelbman v Gelbman ( 23 NY2d 434 ) abolished this immunity. … Rather, we are permitting recovery, previously denied, after the liability has been established.

People v. King

232 A.D.2d 111 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 6, 1997

Furthermore, there is no concomitant right concerning the disposition of a blood sample, lawfully seized, such as would immunize the donor from the consequences of its use in unrelated police investigations”. ( 161 Misc 2d … The testimony adduced at the suppression hearing clearly indicates that both the forensic scientists and the District Attorney believed in good faith that the stain samples obtained as a result of the investigation into the

George F. Johnson Memorial Library v. Springer

11 A.D.3d 804 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 22, 2004

The Town Clerk, however, refused to certify the proposition to the Broome County Board of Elections on the ground that “the proposition is not clearly authorized” because it seeks to “increase the funding to [certain] levels … from a zero level of funding” (emphasis in original), i.e., to establish a new appropriation to fund the libraries, rather than increase an existing level of funding.

Murray v. Donlan

77 A.D.2d 337 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 17, 1980

The crucial question, therefore, is whether the police officer’s opinion was qualified. … This is not true when a fact is established by judicial notice.”

Nolan v. State of New York

2018 NY Slip Op 269 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 16, 2018

The use of the word "or" clearly indicates that the state of the law in New York is such that mental anguish is an alternative to reputational injury in establishing damages in a defamation case. … Claimant purports to qualify under the "loathsome disease" category. Whether HIV infection falls under that category appears to be a question of first impression.

Moray v. Mokay

67 A.D.3d 1210 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 19, 2009

Next, we turn to Neroni’s argument that his conduct was “covered by advisor’s immunity” and therefore not actionable. … It clearly provided that decedent would keep the two parcels during his life, but that such parcels would ultimately pass to his five children. * Plaintiffs presented proof, including a detailed affidavit from Mokay, establishing

In re Adam DD.

112 A.D.2d 493 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 3, 1985

Therefore, the hearing held on July 13, 1984 cannot qualify as a dispositional hearing since a fact-finding hearing must precede a dispositional hearing (see, Family Ct Act § 1047 [a]). … We, therefore, conclude that the record clearly afforded a basis for Family *495 Court to find neglect because of possible impairment of the child’s emotional health. Order affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P.

Lewis v. Roux Trucking Corp.

222 A.D. 204 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 28, 1927

The respondent herein asserts that Professor Wigmore establishes his right to the order appealed from. (See 5 Wigm. Ev. [2d ed.] § 2378, pp. 194, 195.) … The next quotation is: “ After guaranteeing to official communications and acts an immunity from liability to civil or criminal consequences, and after further eliminating those acts and communications which are in no sense

State Division of Human Rights v. New York City Department of Parks & Recreation

38 A.D.2d 25 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 9, 1971

.] ” The above order was made only after it had been determined that the height and weight standards tended to exclude the vast majority of women from qualifying for the subject position. … The effect clearly is to exclude virtually all women and the position of lifeguard, therefore, is open essentially to men.

Crumb v. Broadnax

178 A.D.2d 781 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 26, 1991

The notice further provided that the oral test was designed against the general background of the position to test for the applicants’ ability to reason clearly and make sound judgments, to present ideas clearly and effectively … , and to establish satisfactory relationships with others.

Tator v. Salem

81 A.D.2d 727 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 30, 1981

Furthermore, the record indicates that he also misled Hudson City Savings Institution by indicating that his wife would have no earning power until she qualified as a certified public accountant. … Circumstances such as these, together with plaintiff’s legitimate right under the contract to receive $65,000 for the sale of her property, clearly establish the equitableness and propriety of holding defendant responsible