Case law

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.

Valton v. National Loan Fund Life Assurance Society

17 Abb. Pr. 268 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1863

In *284 the present case, the interrogatories which were presented to the witness clearly showed that the inquiry was not properly before him, as it was in the case referred to. … It only shows that the judge charged more favorably for the defendants than was warranted, as he clearly did, if the charge covered the questions overruled.

Schneider v. City of Rochester

35 N.Y.S. 786 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 16, 1895

. *788 In pursuance of the authority thus given by the charter, on the 18th day of January, 1894, the county court of Monroe county, upon due notice, appointed three commissioners, that were qualified by the statute as such … Y. 54 : “A law which has received the sanction of the legislature, and the approval of the executive, should only be held void, as repugnant to the constitution, when the repugnancy is clearly demonstrated.

Town of Greenburgh v. Board of Supervisors

53 Misc. 2d 88 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 3, 1967

However, when tested by established rules, the plan presented in the local law is clearly unacceptable. … That evidence is not sufficient to permit a finding by the court that the population of any ward has been established.

People v. Muller

2 N.Y. Crim. 279 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1884

And it is in this manner particularly that the photographs produced upon the trial and argument of this case are clearly distinguishable from those productions which are tolerated and Commended by the intelligent judgment … It was urged upon the trial, and evidence was offered to be given to establish the fact that the photographs were taken from pictures publicly exhibited in reputable European places.

Town of New Hartford v. Village of New Hartford

6 Misc. 3d 411 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 30, 2004

police department, that a village with a police department could opt out of operating a department, and that as a result the cost of operating the department would be a town-wide charge. * The Bill Jacket of section 208-a clearly … Such police officers must meet all the physical requirements established by the Civil Service Department. Municipalities are unable to hire physically qualified policemen for a few hours a day to guard school crossings.

In re Pescatore

57 Misc. 3d 569 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 25, 2017

The Court of Appeals *574 reasoned that “[e]very person has a right to life, and no one should be denied essential medical care unless the evidence clearly and convincingly shows that the patient intended to decline the treatment … Pescatore, this court finds that he is in fact her only friend, which qualifies him as Ms. Pescatore’s surrogate under the FHCDA (see Public Health Law § 2994-d [1] [f]).

Brinkerhoff v. County of St. Lawrence

24 Misc. 3d 426 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 30, 2009

Clearly this amendment expands liability from that which was previously, narrowly read by the courts to arise only from “premises liability.” … On this last point, plaintiff alleges the County’s policies qualify as predicates to impose General Municipal Law § 205-e liability.

8200 Realty Corp. v. Lindsay

60 Misc. 2d 248 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 27, 1969

More specifically, the State enabling act does not prohibit the city from excluding from control dwelling units already controlled by self-regulation provided the self regulatory standards are clearly defined and legal. … If that were the class, they say, their “ pre-February 1, 1947 ’ ’ units would also qualify, under Title YY, for escape from Title Y. The law on the subject is clear. In Mutual Loan Co. v. Martell ( 222 U.

Edenwald Contracting Co. v. City of New York

86 Misc. 711 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 27, 1974

That exception is clearly not applicable here. … Each of such cases may be relied tin only as establishing that the statutory enactments did not violate constitutional limitations.

People ex rel. Sturges v. Keese

34 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 483 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1882

The persons entitled to vote at such meeting shall be the male persons of full age belonging to the church or congregation, qualified as follows, and none other : “ First. … This doctrine is applicable to every species of corporation, excepting those owned by the State or established for governmental *489 purposes, and has been applied to religious corporations. (Terrett v.

Meachum v. Outdoor World Corp.

171 Misc. 2d 354 · New York Supreme Court · Nov 22, 1996

Clearly, the input and advice of counsel would be expected. … Clearly, clients have the right to deal with each other directly.

Lauderdale Peerage Claim

17 Abb. N. Cas. 439 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1885

It is not upon light evidence or upon a light presumption that we can act, but it must clearly appear by unmistakable evidence that the party who has a domicile of origin intends to part with it and intends to establish his … , until the contrary is plainly and clearly established, that all that was required to give it legal validity and force took place. “ I should prefer, my Lords, in place of dealing either with the opinions of American lawyers

Paige v. Cagwin

7 Hill & Den. 361 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1843

Southgate establishes the same principle; but the question whether that defence can be established by the declarations of such original payee was not raised. … The defence still exists; but it must be established by testimony, and not by mere declarations.

In re Rose

109 Misc. 2d 960 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 4, 1981

Defendant’s request for a rehearing contains the demand that it be held before a jury and that the court appoint two qualified psychiatrists to examine him, make their report in writing and, if necessary, be required to testify … The court in Addington v Texas ( 441 US 418, 432-433 ) clearly and in unmistakable descriptive language stated that in a civil commitment proceeding, “To meet due process demands, the standard has to inform the factfinder

Degraaf v. Teerpenning

52 How. Pr. 313 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1876

Teerpenning, deceased, were the executors thereof- and qualified as such. By the will certain real estate was devised to Ezekiel, certain other .to John S., as tenants in common. … With these two significant declarations to guide us, and which are so fully established, it is hardly fair to assume that the testator immediately falsified his own words by turning the money, which at the instant of giving

City of Utica v. Churchill

43 Barb. 550 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1865

The Bank of the United States had been previously incorporated by congress, and established one of its branches in Baltimore. … operations of government, yet the courts are not authorized to review the action of congress in that behalf, and therefore banks, when created by congress, must be held to be constitutional agents, and entitled to all the immunities

Irving v. Claggett

3 Silv. Sup. 514 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1890

And it was held that this was all that the law required, and the evidence was clearly sufficient to establish the correctness of the plaintiff’s accounts. … And it was held that it was clearly error to admit this evidence.

People v. Vollero

108 Misc. 635 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1919

I think you will get that clearly. An accomplice is one who himself, on the proof in the case, would be guilty of the offense charged. … Clearly the trial justice himself was not aware of it. If he had been he most certainly would not have charged the jury as he did regarding Mancini.

Staten Island Edison Corp. v. Moore

6 Misc. 2d 1031 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1955

This witness testified that the 15% depreciation allowed by the State Board was “ clearly inadequate ” and was “inadequate for that purpose ”. … J., Feb. 19, 1952, p. 686, col. 1, supra), are clearly not present.