Case law

People ex rel. Weatherwax v. Watt

115 Misc. 120 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1921

Can it be said that it was the purpose of the legislature to grant a greater immunity from punishment in a case where there is' no semblance of right to operate such a bus line or jitney, by reason of a total failure to comply … The court said at page 743: “ If the welfare and convenience of the citizens require additional accommodations for transit such as would be furnished by established stage routes, there is a legal way to accomplish the result

In re AB

196 Misc. 2d 940 · New York Supreme Court · May 16, 2003

Accordingly, a competent adult’s (or an adult who clearly made her wishes known prior to becoming incapacitated) right to refuse treatment can prevail over the State’s parens patriae interests. … The record clearly establishes that she is a loving mother who has no financial or other interest in making the decision to withdraw life support except to ensure that her daughter dies peacefully.

Giventer v. Rementeria

184 Misc. 2d 744 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 18, 2000

Again, the jury awarded precisely what the testimony called for, the jury’s award clearly contemplated private therapies at home and cannot then be replaced by school therapies which are not equivalent in nature. … In light of all of the considerations set forth above, the trial courts of this State have repeatedly rejected claims by defendants that services available through the school may qualify as a collateral source.

People v. Ortega

127 Misc. 2d 717 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 6, 1985

In CPL 330.20, a “three track” procedure scheme is established. (People v Flock-hart, 96 AD2d 843 [2d Dept 1983].) … Powell v Warden ( 73 AD2d 654 , supra) stands for the proposition that a psychiatric facility can qualify as a “detention facility” if *733 a court order requires the defendant’s presence there.

Connelly v. Manhattan Railway Co.

15 N.Y.S. 176 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1891

He qualified the expression above quoted by the reference to “human care, skill, .and foresight” which follows it. … was clearly objectionable, and the ruling favorable to the question erroneous. The error, however, was not prejudicial, as the answer-excluded any doubt, uncertainty, or mere likelihood.

Chipman v. Montgomery

11 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 739 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1875

lost, or used up, it presumably remains, especially as it was the duty of the trustee to preserve it; and so late as 1870 new administrators were appointed to administer the trust, and are found by the court to have duly qualified … They are presumed to be cumulative, unless the contrary intention is clearly expressed. (Hooley v. Hatton, H. & W. Lead. Cases in Eq., 285 ; Dewitt v. Yates, 10 Johns., 156 -158.)

Burdick v. Freeman

53 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 138 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1887

It is most clearly against the interests of those living on the border for our courts to encourage or entertain jurisdiction of such actions. … To do so would establish a practice which might often be attended with serious disadvantage to persons crossing the border. The true policy is to refuse jurisdiction in all such cases unless for special reasons shown.”

People ex rel. Bockes v. Wemple

59 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 414 · New York Supreme Court · May 15, 1889

That when the words are obscure, so that the intent does not clearly appear, it may be inferred from the cause or necessity of the statute. “ Third. … Y., 604 .) “ It is equally well settled that words, absolute of themselves, and language the most broad and comprehensive, may be qualified and restricted by reference to other parts of the same statute in which they are

Conde Nast, Inc. v. Town of North Hempstead

160 Misc. 267 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1936

Clearly the Dongan patent (defendant’s Exhibit 73) was valuable to the townspeople. … The Dongan instrument (defendant’s Exhibit 73) makes the following commitment: “I doe hereby likewise Confirme and Grant unto the said Patentees and their associates * * * all the Privileges and Immunities belonging to a

Lee v. Vacuum Oil Co.

7 N.Y.S. 426 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 19, 1889

leave it to the jury for them to say whether the defendant was guilty, or not, of maintaining a nuisance, but, for a reason which will be hereafter stated, it becomes unnecessary to consider how far the last instructions qualified … not prevail-for the purpose of reversing •the judgment, for the defendant’s liability was established irrespective of the question of nuisance.

Hodge v. Security Insurance

40 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 583 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1884

is not liable to challenge, may not strictly be applicable to instruments not under seal, yet in such case the party charging that a delivery formally made was not in fact to take effect as a delivery, has the burden to clearly … And tbe question of custom which the defendant sought to establish as existing between ,the insurance agents and brokers in tbe city of Buffalo, of giving and taking notice of termination of insurance obtained by tbe latter

Weimer v. Board of Education

99 Misc. 2d 47 · New York Supreme Court · Nov 8, 1978

Thus, the earlier test established by the Commissioner of Education in his decisions does afford some guidance. … The court finds that the actions of the board were not principally motivated by a desire to rid itself of an undesired tenured *57 employee. 9 The facts adduced at trial clearly show that the growth of the school district

Johnson v. Martins

30 Misc. 3d 844 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 8, 2010

Thus, the court is without authority to rule on whether those individuals who cast affidavit ballots were lawfully registered and qualified to vote. … There is clearly handwriting on each of them, writing that voters intentionally placed there, but what was *848 their intent?

Goldstein v. Rockefeller

45 Misc. 2d 778 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 6, 1965

Clearly, stioh a proceeding does not lie to review action which is legislative in nature or to compel a legislative body to enact particular legislation.” (Matter of Pelham Jewish Center v. … As stated by that court (p. 1003): “ The counties in New York are not established nor are their boundaries drawn toy the State Constitution; they are entirely creatures of the legislature.

Cortlandt Street Recovery Corp. v. Hellas Telecommunications

47 Misc. 3d 544 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 16, 2014

Although the party seeking leave “need not establish the merit of its proposed new allegations,” it must “show that the proffered amendment is not palpably insufficient or clearly devoid of merit.” (MBIA Ins. … Defendants also assert that this action does not qualify for CPLR 3213 relief because resort to extrinsic evidence is necessary to establish WTC’s status as trustee.

ACE Securities Corp. v. DB Structured Products, Inc.

52 Misc. 3d 343 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 29, 2016

that could potentially conflict with an already established body of law, without any explicit discussion of the issue. … If no time limit for compliance with the condition is established, or the established time limit is still open, or CPLR 205 operates because of the defectively commenced action to extend the time limit, the omission [of such

Skinner v. Dayton

19 Johns. 513 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 15, 1822

The cases cited in support of that position are clearly distinguishable from the present case. … The parties to this bill, or those whom they represent, formed a limited and qualified co-partnership, the articles of which are set forth in the case.

Hartung v. People

4 Park. Cr. 319 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1859

Under well established adjudications, these objections raised no question as to the form of the interrogatory, but only as to its substance. … I do not regard it as essential to travel over the entire evidence relied upon to establish the existence of these irregularities.

Davis v. Cole

193 Misc. 2d 380 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 9, 2002

Precedent clearly indicates that, as to an unforeclosed proprietary lease, the established maintenance for a unit is the proper measure of relief in equitable proceedings similar to the one at hand. … Realty Co., 123 AD2d 198, 201 [1st Dept 1987] [“It would be a ridiculous perversion of the (rent stabilization) statute to hold when (rehabilitation) costs are substantially borne by the tenants it would qualify the landlord

Oglesby v. McKinney

6 Misc. 3d 905 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 22, 2004

In order to establish a prima facie case for violation of the fair cross-section requirement under the 6th Amendment, the defendant must show: “(1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a ‘distinctive’ group in the community … The Legislature did not limit the term “community” to only the governmental subdivision wherein the subject court convenes, although it clearly had the authority to do so.