Case law

Zelby v. Omansky

61 Misc. 2d 199 · New York Supreme Court · Nov 6, 1969

Clearly the provision has no application to the present action. There is no prohibition in the law against one spouse suing the other. … Rather, we are permitting recovery, previously denied, after the liability has been established.” Accordingly an order will be signed dismissing the affirmative defenses.

McCarver v. De Mornay-Bonardi Corp.

8 Misc. 2d 273 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 23, 1957

The voluminous papers presented to the court establish that the plaintiff instituted a prior action in the United States Bis-trict Court, Southern Bistrict, in 1949 against the individual defendants herein and others, but … Plaintiff’s efforts as late as May 28, 1957 to resettle the order clearly established knowledge of the existence of the order and its binding effect.

Lewis v. City of New York

17 Misc. 3d 559 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 14, 2007

(See, Alexander, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 4521, C4518:9.) *567 Discussion The records sought herein (a tape recording and a transcript of testimony provided by a party) clearly qualify … A motion by the City defendants to dismiss based, among other things, upon a claim of sovereign immunity, is currently under consideration. .

Matthew Woods v. City of New York

129 Misc. 2d 851 · New York Supreme Court · May 10, 1985

Clearly they have a litigable grievance. … Soto-Lopez struck down as unconstitutional any requirement that, as a condition of receiving veteran’s bonus points in civil service examinations, the otherwise qualified veteran had to be a New York resident at the time

Bell v. New York Higher Education Assistance Corp.

138 Misc. 2d 932 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 4, 1987

Clearly, the specific reference to NYHEAC’s status as "within” the State University is an indication of the Legislature’s intention that NYHEAC be considered as an agency of the State. … The State has not waived sovereign immunity with regard to wholly equitable claims. (Psaty v Duryea, supra, at 417 .)

People v. Harris

182 Misc. 787 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 12, 1944

Cassidy had refused to sign a waiver of immunity, and called to the Mayor’s attention section 6 of article I of the New York State Constitution. … The evidence must be of such weight as to clearly overcome the presumption of innocence before an indictment can properly be found.

DiNova v. Sunnyview Hospital & Rehabilitation Center

135 Misc. 2d 961 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1987

A review of court exhibit A clearly establishes that the investigation at issue was made by the defendant’s liability insurer in contemplation of litigation. … The plaintiffs are clearly not entitled to the product of the investigation of defendant’s insurer without establishing a requisite showing of substantial need and undue hardship required by CPLR 3101 (d) (2).

Brown v. City School District

104 Misc. 2d 796 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 2, 1980

The Legislature has clearly indicated a desire to retain the statutory religious exemption. … The Supreme Court, in Stanley v Illinois ( 405 US 645, 656 ) recognized that, "The establishment of prompt efficacious procedures to achieve legitimate state ends is a proper state interest worthy of cognizance in constitutional

Town of Orangetown v. Magee

156 Misc. 2d 881 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 23, 1992

DEFENSE OF IMMUNITY The defense of "qualified immunity” is not available to Town officials who have been found to have violated defendants’ rights. … Since the Orangetown officials and the Building Inspector acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in *896 violation of established law and procedures, the "qualified immunity” defense is without basis in law.

Ancona v. Net Realty Holding Trust Co.

153 Misc. 2d 946 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 1, 1992

CPLR 3101 (b) affords privileged matter absolute immunity from discovery; CPLR 3101 (c) affords an attorney’s work product absolute immunity from discovery; CPLR 3101 (d) (2) affords a conditional immunity to materials otherwise … Any and all of such photographs, motion pictures and/or videotapes would clearly constitute materials prepared in anticipation of litigation, and would, therefore, be entitled to conditional immunity from discovery.

People v. Seaman

174 Misc. 792 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 12, 1940

The rule seems to be established by the weight of authority in New York State that a person’s constitutional privilege is violated where he is compelled to appear before a grand jury and testify in an investigation directed … Seaman, was subpoenaed and sworn was directed against him and referred to the matters for which he was subsequently indicted, clearly appears.

People v. Woodruff

50 Misc. 2d 430 · New York Supreme Court · May 18, 1966

In the instant matter the contempt was committed before the Grand Jury as established on the hearing. … This is clearly sufficient to require her to testify even though there is a possibility of prosecution in other jurisdictions (Matter of Herlands [Carchietta], 204 Misc. 373 ).

Metropolitan Ass'n of Private Day Schools, Inc. v. Baumgartner

41 Misc. 2d 560 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 3, 1963

The statutory scheme provided for the City of New York clearly indicates the difference. … settled that ‘ in no case does the owner of property acquire immunity against the exercises of the police power because he constructed it in full compliance with existing laws.’ ” (See, also, Patsone v.

Richmond v. People of Porto Rico

51 Misc. 202 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1906

The plaintiff, in a learned and able brief, recognizes the principle of the immunity of a sovereign nation from process issued out of the courts of a sister nation or of one of the States of this Union, but claims that the … power is lodged in “the Legislative Assembly of Porto Rico,” *205 composed of two houses, one being the executive council and the other the house of delegates, consisting of thirty-five members elected bi-annually by the qualified

Stenovich v. Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz

195 Misc. 2d 99 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 2, 2003

“The burden of establishing any right to protection is on the party asserting it; the protection claimed must be narrowly construed, and. its application must be consistent with the purposes underlying the immunity.” … The burden of demonstrating that particular records are immune from discovery is on the party asserting such immunity and this burden is so placed by virtue of the strong policy in favor of full disclosure.

In re the Application of the Attorney-General

21 Misc. 101 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1897

An attempt has apparently been made in the statute in question to give immunity to. the witnesses. … This language comes far short, in my opinion, from giving absolute immunity to the witness from prosecution.

Hunterfly Realty Corp. v. State

62 Misc. 2d 567 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1970

Waivers of sovereign immunity must be strictly construed (Wolf v. State of New York, 219 App. Div. 584 , affd. 247 N. Y. 542 , Smith v. State of New York, 227 N. Y. 405, 410 ). … through an established form of action, the remedy should not be used (24 Carmody-Wait 2d, New York Practice, § 147:6).

People on rel. Morton v. Tieman

8 Abb. Pr. 359 · New York Supreme Court · May 15, 1859

Evidence establishing the fact that an officer issuing process is an officer de facto, is not merely prima facie evidence that he is an officer. … It follows that he has not established a right to the writ for which he asks, and the motion must be denied with costs.

Krystal G. v. Roman Catholic Diocese

34 Misc. 3d 531 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 14, 2011

Hence, the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause protection does not bar plaintiffs’ discovery. … However, they provide no legal support for such immunities. Cortez may qualify as the type of “penitent” that CPLR 4505 contemplates.

Kellogg v. Office of the Chief Medical Examiner

6 Misc. 3d 666 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 15, 2004

Waiver of immunity by inference is disfavored. … Clearly, plaintiff does not have standing to allege a human rights violation on his own behalf or on the behalf of the deceased.