Case law

Dodds v. McColgan

134 Misc. 518 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 18, 1929

This widow was named as executrix of her husband’s estate and duly qualified as such, and as such executrix managed the real estate so devised. … Even though the only permissible inferences flowing from all the facts in this case did not point so clearly and unmistakably to intentional fraud, defendant would still be liable.

Hopper v. Britt

73 Misc. 369 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1911

Clearly this provision discriminates in favor of the citizen exercising his right of suffrage for a single party candidate against the citizen exercising his right of suffrage for a multiple party candidate. … Finally it is well established that, where the duty the.performance of which is sought to be compelled is a public duty, a writ of mandamus will be issued without consideration of prior demand and refusal.

Gewurz v. Bernstein

107 Misc. 2d 857 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 2, 1981

Whatever the reception of this Gewurz communication may have been elsewhere, clearly the reaction of defendant Bernstein, a member of the Bar with offices in Manhattan, was one of outrage. … The instant motion to dismiss is carefully limited by the movant so as to exclude all questions of qualified privilege and lack of malice implicit in the landmark United States Supreme Court decision in New York Times Co.

Jones v. Utica & Black River Railroad

43 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 115 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1885

"While we recognize the rule that the burden is upon the plaintiff to establish negligence, and in doing so in this peculiar instance to make it appear that the bell was not rung, we think the conflict was such between the … In the case in hand we are of the opinion that the jury were not put clearly and fully in possession of the rules of law relative to the duties of the defendant.

People v. Martinez

151 Misc. 2d 641 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 19, 1991

RECOGNITION OF NEW YORK STATE’S FINANCIAL INTERESTS In addition, New York clearly has a financial interest in any funds forfeited within its jurisdiction. … the State courts have attempted to establish jurisdiction.

Trustees of Village of Bath v. McBride

81 Misc. 618 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1913

Hallock qualified as surety. Mr. Hallock was a partner in and engaged in the active management of the George W. Hallock Bank. … The resolution of the board of trustees demanding security from the treasurer to the amount of $25,000 clearly contemplated the statutory security, and when, or how, or at whose suggestion, one of the bonds was, in form,

Duverney v. City of New York

57 Misc. 3d 537 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 15, 2017

Respondents’ reliance on an arrest, when the crime was never established, to justify denying petitioner’s reinstatement is problematic. … Here, respondents allegedly did not follow the clearly-stated procedure for terminating a probationary employee on the job for less than two months.

People v. Gorney

203 Misc. 512 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 6, 1951

In the instant case the defendant has failed to establish as a fundamental premise that an agreement, express or implied, was made upon the trial as a fourth offender that his former convictions would be treated as a single … Had the *521 Legislature intended to prevent the result reached in the Terwilliger ease (supra) and the others above cited, the language of the statute “ after having been three times convicted ” could have otherwise been qualified

Gallin v. National City Bank

152 Misc. 679 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1934

by the statute without depriving directors of an immunity conferred upon them. … Clearly, no breach of duty is established against the defendants, and plaintiffs’ contentions on this point are overruled. VI. Management funds.

Rogers v. Jones

1 Wend. 237 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 15, 1828

Com. 19, does not bear out the position, but establishes the contrary. … A recovery may be had under the second section, which is clearly a regulation as to the times of taking oysters ; and gives the penalty generally without specifying for whose use.

Phelps v. People

13 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 401 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1876

The indictment clearly charges the crime of grand larceny under the statute. … His was but a qualified possession, carrying with it no right of property. ' He held the securities and funds in or under his, custody merely, not for himself, but for his employer.

In re the Accounting of Dohrman

195 Misc. 1017 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 16, 1949

The only heirs of children of the testator who could qualify for membership in the class of those named to take were those whose parent failed to survive the donee of the power (Matter of Fiske, N. Y. L. … The law of the estate in this respect was established by Mr.

Senior Life Management, Inc. v. Dowling

164 Misc. 2d 487 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 13, 1995

Under its approved plan, New York has developed a methodology for establishing the fees that will be paid to providers of Medicaid patients. … Medicaid rates are usually less than what has been established as the reasonable charge for the same services rendered to Medicare patients.

Coutant v. People ex rel. Bunn

11 N.Y. 511 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1833

Was it the intention of the framers of the constitution to establish a series of triennial elections, which should be the same throughout all time ; or did they merely intend to declare that officers of *514 this class should … provide for his holding over after the expiration of the constitutional term until the appointing power can have a convenient opportunity to exercise the right *521 to appoint a successor, and until such successor is duly qualified

In re James

54 Misc. 2d 514 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 17, 1967

The proceedings on April 11th and 12th were clearly illegal.” … Is it conceivable that the very same procedure condemned in Miranda can be applied with immunity if the interrogation is done in a hospital? Does the name of the building matter? We think not.

Ex parte Holmes

5 Cow. 426 · New York Supreme Court · May 15, 1826

Suppose we should order an information to be filed, as we may do, if the nature of the case require it: clearly the process, in such a case, could go only against the directors Avhose seats arc questioned. Platt. … (naming the other ten who applied.) • On reading and filing a notice of motion for a rule, or order to confirm and establish the election of Zebedee Ring, &c.

Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Aberle

18 Misc. 257 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1896

Samuel Milbank was appointed and qualified as receiver of its property, and, claiming to be entitled to the funds in the hands of the plaintiff and the right to distribute said funds under the direction of this- court, he … the members of the association might, and without their consent, be deprived of all the benefits and advantage, which, under existing contracts, were vested rights in said funds, and was, therefore, a violation of well-established

Pettibone v. Drakeford

44 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 628 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1885

The first of those sections provides that “the property of the judgment debtor” is vested in a receiver, who has duly qualified, from the time of filing the order appointing him, or extending his receivership, as the case … This implies clearly that the title acquired within that period by a purchaser without consideration or acting mala fide, or with notice of the proceeding, does not stand in the way of the1 title of the receiver, and it seems

Swartout v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad

14 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 571 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1876

Such failure does not establish the fact that the fences or guards have not been properly erected or built. … The evidence to show, as in this case, that the guard was properly constructed, must be obtained from men experienced in the construction of guards, from personswhose occupation and business make them peculiarly qualified

Harker v. Anderson

21 Wend. 372 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1839

It is a well established general rule, though not entirely unshaken by exception, vid. Sage v. … He clearly is entitled to the benefit of immediate "presentment." We have seen how a.contrary doctrine was-treated by Ch; J.