Case law

Bank of Troy v. Topping

13 Wend. 557 · New York Supreme Court · May 15, 1835

The agreement to submit and the note and the award were considered as parts of the same transaction and as qualifying and explaining each other. … The evidence clearly showed that it was not so understood and intended by the parties.

Harrower v. Ritson

37 Barb. 301 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 1, 1861

J. delivering the judgment of the court, in which he says: “ How it is fully established by the recent cases, (citing them,) that if there be a nuisance in a public highway a private individual cannot of his own authority … The case was one in which a removal of the fence was clearly justified by necessity.

Richman v. Richman

32 Misc. 2d 1090 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 13, 1962

It was his opinion that respondent was not in a state of remission. *1094 Moreover, aside from an apparently not clearly defined impression that respondent was not reacting in a sufficiently “ emotional ’ ’ manner under all … Even though his professional standing and independence are recognized, it does not follow that his opinions may not be tested, qualified or even discredited.

Onassis v. Christian Dior — New York, Inc.

122 Misc. 2d 603 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 11, 1984

Once the violation is established, the plaintiff may have an absolute right to injunction, regardless of the relative damage to the parties. … No one is free to trade on another’s name or appearance and claim immunity because what he is using is similar to but not identical with the original.

Guiles v. Simser

9 Misc. 3d 1083 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 23, 2005

The affiant is not a medical doctor, a psychiatrist, a clinical psychologist or a qualified psychiatric social worker. … The defendant’s conduct, however, clearly violated Code of Professional Responsibility DR 5-111 (b) (3) (22 NYCRR 1200.29-a [b] [3]).

Bakalar v. Lazar

71 Misc. 2d 683 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 3, 1972

Plaintiff, however, has not established a clear right to the relief demanded by -him, on the foregoing grounds or otherwise, and his motion for a preliminary injunction must therefore- be denied (Meda Int. v. … Thus, it was clearly contemplated that the Commission would have the power to regulate taxicab activities extending beyond “ the five boroughs ” of the city.

Burke v. Kingsley Books, Inc.

208 Misc. 150 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 13, 1955

At pages 715-716, the court said: “ The objection has also been made that the principle as to immunity from previous restraint is stated too broadly, if every such restraint is deemed to be prohibited. … Be that as it may, it is an established principle of our law that a statute must, if possible, be so construed as to be constitutional (Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 46 ; Panama R. R. Co. v. Johnson, 264 U.

Ensley v. New York City Department of Personnel

173 Misc. 2d 1035 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 4, 1997

Persons who took the earlier examinations also lost the benefit of being appointed from the earlier lists that should have been established, petitioners argue. … Petitioners admit that the Merged List was established on or about January 10, 1996.

Kim v. Town of Orangetown

66 Misc. 2d 364 · New York Supreme Court · May 17, 1971

Clearly, the local ordinance at bar violates this privacy in requiring a patient to have the abortion performed in a hospital or affiliated facility. *369 In addition, insofar as the ordinance provides that a violation of … This article requires that abortions be performed only by physicians operating in a place or facility where there is qualified supervision in obstetrics or surgery, and where equipment, staff and facilities are provided to

Gordon v. Marrone

155 Misc. 2d 726 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1992

The precedential value of cases construing rule 11 is also not as compelling as petitioner suggests for the reason that 22 NYCRR subpart 130-1 is clearly broader in reach than rule 11. … But such largesse does not mean that such conduct is or should be immunized from later judicial scrutiny (see, 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c]).

Carter v. Tallcott

2 How. Pr. 352 · New York Supreme Court · May 15, 1885

This was manifestly and clearly an erroneous view to be taken of the rights of the defendant *355 in the enforcement of the counter-claim, and which according to the evidence of the assignor Cross was not anticipated. … responsible for errors of judgment which may arise after that degree of care and attention has been devoted to their professional employment, as is ordinarily devoted by persons reasonably competent, experienced and well qualified

M. Roth & Co. v. New York Mercantile Exchange

146 Misc. 644 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 28, 1932

Assent to delivery, unless otherwise qualified, is assent to appropriation, and thus, subject to rescission, an acceptance of the title.” (Glass & Co. v. Misroch, supra, 480, 484 .) … The rule adopted was clearly retroactive and not binding on the parties to these transactions.

People v. Buddensieck

4 N.Y. Crim. 230 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1886

And he was accordingly a qualified juror. … It is quite clearly established, that the buildings fell because of the use of that material, without reference to ■ any other defect They fell, too, it must be observed, before completion, and it would seem to be beyond

People ex rel. Childs v. Knott

104 Misc. 378 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1918

attend upon the trial of a hotly contested issue, the legislature provided for a summary proceeding which might be instituted by the district attorney, attorney-general or a candidate voted for at the election, or by five qualified … Sessions had jurisdiction of the defendant and of the offense, and under the plea of guilty was empowered to pronounce the sentence which it did pronounce unless the fact of the defendant’s marriage to the complainant was established

Harlow v. La Brun

31 N.Y.S. 487 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 4, 1894

It was therefore clearly competent, under the defendant’s answer, to attack the articles of copartnership for fraud. … When he appeals to the court for relief, and establishes the fraud, he should be relieved from the hazard of a business combination into-which he has been inveigled by fraud and misrepresentation.

Bee Line, Inc. v. Nickerson

60 Misc. 2d 931 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 4, 1969

In furtherance thereof, local governments shall have the following rights, powers, privileges and immunities in addition to those granted by other provisions of this constitution: * * * “ (h) {I) ¡Counties, other than those … Therefore, when delegated its existence and the authority to make it must clearly and unmistakably appear. (Matter of Quinby v. Public Service Commission, 223 N. Y. 244 .)

Onadia v. City of New York

56 Misc. 3d 309 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 9, 2017

Further, whether a particular lawsuit qualifies as a class action rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. … Based on the foregoing, the court also finds that plaintiff has established typicality of claims.

S & L Paving Corp. v. MacMurray Tractor, Inc.

61 Misc. 2d 90 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1969

Y. 228 ), especially since no objection was made to the evidence establishing the cause of action. (Novak v. Melnyk, 224 App. Div. 492, 495 , affd. 252 N. Y. 558 .) … Neither party’s “expert” witnesses truly qualified as experts. Apparently, because of the nature of this type of equipment, its fair and reasonable value in a used state is difficult to determine.

Direct Capital Corp. v. New ABI Inc.

13 Misc. 3d 1151 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 4, 2006

[Defendants’] liability to [plaintiff] is independent of [its] claims against the supplier and manufacturer, as UCC article 2-A and the Lease terms clearly delineate” (General Elec. … Moreover, paragraph 3 expressly states that the lease is meant to qualify as “a statutory finance lease under Article 2A of the Uniform Commercial Code.”

Huber v. Huber

26 Misc. 2d 539 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1960

Clearly, therefore, the Florida court had no jurisdiction over defendant’s person. Clearly also, it had no jurisdiction over real property located in New York. (Tiedemann v. Tiedemann, 172 App. … Schreck (supra) which established the New York real property rule, dealt with a New York divorce (the Special Term opinion, reported in 25 Abb. N. C. 133 , so states).