Case law

People v. Monex International Ltd.

86 Misc. 320 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1976

Those subdivisions, however, are themselves qualified by the words "except as hereinabove provided” which refer to the grant of "exclusive jurisdiction” to the CFTC. … Notwithstanding the scope of the jurisdiction extended to the CFTA, the legislative history of the CFTCA clearly indicates that it was not intended that the act abate pending proceedings.

Collins v. McKenna

116 Misc. 72 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1921

It is clearly established that the conveyance was Avithout *75 substantial valuable consideration. … in question in which he knew that he only had a life estate with that of the adjoining property which he owned in fee was the controlling motive that induced him to get the deed from his daughters when they were legally qualified

Develop Don't Destroy (Brooklyn), Inc. v. Empire State Development Corp.

33 Misc. 3d 330 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 13, 2011

However, as the Court also held, ESDC’s choice of the build year is not immune to judicial review but, rather, is subject to review under the rational basis or arbitrary and capricious standard that is applicable to judicial … It does appear that such failure would qualify as an event of default for which a notice to cure is required under a catchall provision for not otherwise specified defaults. (§ 17.1 [r].)

Erwin v. Hurd

13 Abb. N. Cas. 91 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1883

To this may be added, that conditions are not favored by the law, and hence they must be clearly expressed. … And so far as those expressed in the deed came within such purposes, they do not qualify the title taken, or limit the use to any extent (Bascom v. Albertson, 34 N. Y. 584 ).

Toren v. Anderson, Kill & Olick, P. C.

185 Misc. 2d 23 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 8, 2000

This reasoning does not apply in the case of a professional corporation where personal liability attaches and each member (in this case a law firm) is qualified to appear before the court and argue its case.” … Where a party seeking disqualification does not clearly show that the opposing counsel’s projected testimony will be adverse to the counsel client, disqualification is unwarranted. (See, S & S *30 Hotel Ventures Ltd.

Weyant v. City of New York

162 Misc. 2d 132 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 3, 1994

While New York does not have this statutory requirement for fire department vehicles, the internal rules and regulations reveal that the fire department recognizes the established common-law principle that an employer has … the intent of this legislation, the City contends that the section 1229-c (4) exemption creates absolute immunity.

Seaward v. Tasker

80 Misc. 570 · New York Supreme Court · May 15, 1913

To establish his title, or rather his equitable right, to the money which was paid by Davis, the executor of Mary E. … This evidence establishes that Mrs.

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.

Hirschmann v. Hassapoyannes

11 Misc. 3d 265 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 1, 2005

Here, Hassapoyannes is likely to establish a prima facie case of housing discrimination. … Therefore, Hassapoyannes has established a likelihood of success on the merits.

McGuire v. Trustees of St. Patrick's Cathedral

7 N.Y.S. 345 · New York Supreme Court · Nov 7, 1889

The conclusion of the court upon this branch of the case was that “the agreement, however, to be implied from the receipt was undoubtedly good as a license, giving to the plaintiff immunity while acting under its privilege … The evidence given upon the trial was too-vague and uncertain to establish a valid agreement in perpetuity such as the law recognizes.

Warshawsky v. DiNapoli

22 Misc. 3d 992 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 22, 2008

Petitioner argues that, when applying the plain meaning doctrine to the language of section 605-b, the statute clearly and unambiguously provides that a uniformed court officer who is disabled as *996 a result of heart disease … In that matter, the Court of Appeals addressed “whether section 207-k of the General Municipal Law, often called the ‘heart bill,’ establishes a presumption that a disabling or fatal heart condition suffered by a New York

Board of Education of the Northport-East Northport Union Free School District v. Ambach

107 Misc. 2d 830 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 23, 1981

Instead, it requires only that an ‘otherwise qualified handicapped individual’ not be excluded from participation in a federally funded program ‘solely by reason of his handicap,’ indicating only that mere possession of a … Article 89 of the Education Law clearly favors a policy of providing notice to the parents of handicapped students of matters which effect their children’s education.

Kaplan v. Valley Natl. Bank

New York Supreme Court · Jul 20, 2016

Except for these three situations, none of which apply here, depositary and collecting banks are immune from liability to a payee for conversion, breach of contract, and money had and received ( Id .). … Although the plaintiff would not consent to taking out a reverse mortgage on the Altessa property in 2008, the documentary evidence clearly establishes that he executed the credit-line mortgage on the property in 2003 along

Noel Associates, Inc. v. Merrill

184 Misc. 646 · New York Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1944

We do this not only because a long and uniform line of decisions by our own courts ought to have weight, but because the rule established by these decisions seems to be the sounder one.” … The Legislature clearly did not intend to have the right to security fluctuate with the market, after the action was 'started.

People ex rel. Moore v. Jablonsky

158 Misc. 2d 681 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 19, 1993

"Secondly, I would cite 180.60 of the Criminal Procedure Law, subsection 4, which clearly states that at a felony examination the defense is entitled to cross-examination. "The court: No, it doesn’t say that. … It is the prerogative of this court to terminate such preliminary hearings where there is sufficient evidence to establish that fact.”

Sautkulis v. Conklin

208 Misc. 903 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 9, 1955

The obligation of the plaintiff to pay the applicable rent hinges on his success or failure in establishing his right to specific performance. … This court of equity cannot make a new contract for the parties, nor can it undertake to survey and clearly define the boundaries of the land to which plaintiff claims himself entitled.

Gallup v. Lederer

3 Thomp. & Cook 710 · New York Supreme Court · May 15, 1874

by the defendant’s own statement, to be authorized to sign the receipt of the carman who brought them, and no private restriction, not communicated to the other party to the transaction, was admissible for the purpose of qualifying … The exceptions taken to the other evidence excluded are so clearly untenable as to require no consideration.

Gray v. Gannon

6 Thomp. & Cook 245 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1875

But that is very clearly a mistake. The title and interest of the consignors would be the same in either case. … A mere literal accurate performance may wholly fail to satisfy the true purpose of the contract, and such a performance is not enough if the true purpose of the contract can be gathered from it according to the established

Cervone v. Cervone

155 Misc. 543 · New York Supreme Court · May 21, 1935

him for the New York State examination of those seeking a license to practice medicine and surgery in the State of New York, and that he intended to qualify for and take such examination within a short time, and that he … It should clearly appear not only that the representations were made but that the facts stated were of such weight and seriousness as to induce reasonable persons similarly situated to rely and act upon them.”

People ex rel. Wooster v. Maher

71 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 408 · New York Supreme Court · May 15, 1892

Maher, as mayor of the city of Albany, had expired by its own limitation and his successor had been chosen and qualified, but had not, by any order of court, been substituted as defendant in this action. … Clearly, a peremptory mandamus could not compel Edward A.