Case law

McKay v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

56 Misc. 2d 777 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1968

If hit and run were to be defined as the ordinary concept of the average citizen then this happenstance certainly would not qualify. … However, cases on this subject clearly indicate that the meaning is broader under the section. In Matter of Casanova v.

Levi v. Regents of University of New York

169 Misc. 332 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 27, 1938

It will be noted that the statute does not require any examination except when satisfactory proof of a qualified status is not furnished; nevertheless, respondents allege that on September 21, 1936, the Regents adopted the … If petitioner produced evidence of such a character as to clearly satisfy the requirements of the statute, the Board could not reject it without acting arbitrarily.

Donaldson v. Ryder Truck Rental & Leasing

189 Misc. 2d 750 · New York Supreme Court · Nov 27, 2001

The future medical costs Winship projects are clearly speculative. According to the affidavit of his orthopaedic surgeon, Dr. James J. … Plunkett’s reports and records that have not been submitted in evidentiary or affidavit form and upon conversations with Plunkett’s employees are clearly inadmissible.

Romanchuk v. Murphy

200 Misc. 987 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1951

On June 24, 1949, she took and passed a qualifying oral examination and on July 14, 1950, the municipal civil service commission certified her as eligible for appointment as policewoman, to which position she was appointed … The language of subdivision 3 indicates clearly that it applies to persons who may have already been appointed from the list. The case of Matter of Wolff v. Hodson ( 285 N.

Valdivieso v. Community School Board of District One

67 Misc. 2d 1007 · New York Supreme Court · Nov 2, 1970

Chapter 568 of the Laws of 1968 and subsequent amendments established decentralization of New York City school districts. … A court may not insert qualifying clauses in a statute or add conditions not contained therein.

Charles H. Greenthal Co. v. State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

126 Misc. 2d 795 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 26, 1984

By remanding the case, this court *799 never intended to immunize petitioner from the application of Code § 42 (A), but only from the penalty of expulsion. … The court concluded, “That [the landlord] failed to include appropriate protective provisions for contingencies incidental to rent controlled premises when he purchased the building is clearly no basis for imposing unintended

People v. Carter

73 Misc. 2d 1040 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1973

Napoli ( 67 Misc 2d 1010 [1971]), the five-day deadline for making a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to accord the defendant an opportunity to testify before the Grany Jury was established to separate those with … Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is granted upon the condition that within five days of service of this order upon defendant’s counsel, the defendant executes, in writing, the necessary waiver of immunity provided by law

Mott v. Rivazfar

172 Misc. 2d 507 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 7, 1996

Rivazfar, who lived in Monroe County, and established a visitation schedule which in essence granted Ms. … During the period from 1989 through 1993, the petitioners maintained their visitation schedule as established by the 1989 Florida decree.

Mead v. Maben

14 N.Y.S. 732 · New York Supreme Court · May 21, 1891

Mead was duly appointed and qualified as administrator of her estate. Jonathan A. … of the devisee or legatee without issue, ■then sucli share over to the survivor or survivors, that such words of contingency refer to a death of the devisee or legatee in the life-lime of the testator, is too thoroughly established

Case v. People

6 Abb. N. Cas. 151 · New York Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1877

Now, on that subject, I have examined the statute, and am clearly of opinion that the statement contemplated by law is an annual one, covering a fiscal year. … In that case such averments would be matter of substance, calling for proof of additional facts beyond those which established the untruth of the statement of assets.

People v. Muriale

138 Misc. 2d 1056 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 9, 1988

We have noted that previous decisions of this Court have established the proposition that judicial action is not immunized from the operation of the Fourteenth Amendment simply because it is taken pursuant to the state’s … Therefore, if the People establish a prima facie case of exclusion of jurors because of race by the defense, the court will require the defense to establish that the challenges were not motivated by race. .

People ex rel. Kuhn v. Protestant Episcopal House of Mercy

17 N.Y.S. 166 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1891

That would clearly require evidence aliunde the commitment; for, assuming that adjudication that she was “of the age of seventeen years” was conclusive, still, when would she be discharged? … But the allegation that Josephine Kuhn “was born on the 27th day of May, 1870, and consequently was twenty-one years of age on the 27th day of May, 1891,” was a statement which, being conceded by the demurrer, established

Ford v. Clendenin

137 N.Y.S. 54 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1911

It created a certain power of sale, or certain powers of sale, and possibly established a trust, a point disputed in this case. … Ida then, being over 21 years of age and named as an executrix in the will, took out letters testamentary thereon and qualified and acted as such executrix.

Hughes v. Prim Hall Enterprises, Inc.

182 Misc. 2d 892 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 1, 1999

To establish a prima facie claim of gender discrimination, a plaintiff must initially show: “(1) that the employee is a member of protected class, (2) that she was discharged, (3) that she was qualified for the position, … Trombley are also not sufficient standing alone to establish pretext. The comment to Ms.

People ex rel. Jamerson v. John

80 Misc. 418 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1913

The relators in their petition allege that they have been legally elected trustees of said corporation, at an annual election held in January, 1913, and duly qualified and are acting as such. … The Indian Peacemakers’ Court is established and exists by virtue of section 4‘6 of the Indian Law.

Anonymous v. Weiner

50 Misc. 2d 380 · New York Supreme Court · May 18, 1966

Judicial deference to the decision of those members of the Board of Health who are physicians or otherwise uniquely qualified appears mandatory in the singular circumstances here involved. … [citing cases] * * * When the construction of an administrative regulation rather than a statute is in issue, deference is even more clearly in order.”

Taylor v. Baldwin

10 Barb. 626 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1851

The doctrine of constructive liens will not at this day be extended and applied to cases not within the rule, and the reason of the rule, which has been clearly established. … This Would clearly not hold good in cases of transfer to a creditor in *638 absolute payment of a debt. (See Bayly v. Greenleaf, supra.)

People v. Dolan

95 Misc. 2d 470 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 28, 1978

Clearly, *475 defendant did not have sole or exclusive interest in the blood. In this analysis, we can see that the hospital’s mutual interest in the property enabled it to authorize a valid consent search. … The freedom from an unreasonable search and seizure guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment is a personal right, privilege and immunity.

Piper v. Hayward

71 Misc. 41 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 15, 1911

This action is brought to establish and foreclose a lien on forty-five shares of the defendant’s intestate in the corporation of Johnson, Hayward & Piper, of the par value of $4,500, claimed to he held by the plaintiff as … The testimony clearly shows that at the time the stock was issued plaintiff advanced the whole of the money necessary to purchase the same; that before his death Hayward stated to the witness Johnstone that he owed $4,500

Spaulding v. Hallenbeck

39 Barb. 79 · New York Supreme Court · May 5, 1862

This was an important and a material issue in the case, and the declarations of the party were clearly admissible. The remaining exceptions relate to the charge of the judge in submitting the case to the jury. … It was in substance submitting to the consideration of the jury the declarations of Spaulding as of the time when made, and qualifying them to that extent.