Case law

Starr v. Child

20 Wend. 149 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1838

Alienations were originally made without writing | and where they have *166 been made by deed, it must often happen that the instrument cannot be produced for the purpose of establishing boundaries. … The presumption in favor of the riparian owner is only indulged in the absence of any direct evidence of his boundary; it is never used for the purpose of enlarging, qualifying or in any way affecting his written muniments

Hearst Corp. v. State

24 Misc. 3d 611 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 16, 2009

Further, petitioners contend that respondents’ evidentiary showing falls short of establishing that the information sought to be withheld qualifies for trade secret status under New York law. 13 *631 The court is satisfied … support the agency’s interpretation of the FOIL request as requiring the production of the requested data in its most useful form. 15 The issues of precisely what petitioners were seeking and how it could be provided to them clearly

Matter of Energy Ass'n v. Public Service Commission

169 Misc. 2d 924 · New York Supreme Court · Nov 25, 1996

In addition to the fact that the PSC has not ordered retail wheeling, the position of the petitioners above set forth is clearly without merit. … "Just and reasonable” rates do not necessarily guarantee utilities net revenues nor do they immunize utilities from the effects of competition.

Dickerman v. Abrahams

21 Barb. 551 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 4, 1854

But the intention to devote the property given, secured or bequeathed to the wife for her separate and exclusive use, must clearly appear beyond any reasonable doubt; otherwise the husband will retain his ordinary, legal … This was the settled law prior to the statute of 1848, in which the legislature undertook to entrench upon the marital relations as understood and established by the common law.

Association of the Bar v. Lewisohn

71 Misc. 2d 401 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 13, 1972

Association of Bar ( 154 Misc. 71 ), this court found the petitioner in this case to be a charitable corporation for the purposes of determining its immunity from liability for the torts of its servants and agents under the … However, it is clearly shown that the real property owned by petitioner, which has been placed by respondents on the tax rolls of the City of New York, is used exclusively for charitable and educational purposes, and that

Norman v. Wells

17 Wend. 136 · New York Supreme Court · May 15, 1837

He qualifies and distinguishes the case from the Year Book. … or if that were out of the way what would be done by others either already established, or which would be established?

Durand v. Board of Cooperative Educational Services

70 Misc. 2d 429 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 9, 1972

Those seeking to enjoin the legal use of another’s property on the ground of nuisance have the burden of establishing “ by clear evidence” (County of Sullivan v. … A mere possibility is not sufficient. “ A court of equity will lend its aid to enjoin a threatened public nuisance wherever it clearly appears that the acts sought to be restrained will necessarily result in the creation

Soldiers', Sailors', Marines' & Airmen's Club, Inc. v. Carlton Regency Corp.

30 Misc. 3d 352 · New York Supreme Court · Nov 10, 2010

Such a scenario is clearly beyond the parties’ contractual intent, and is inconsistent with the presumption that the creator intended the estate to be valid (EPTL 9-1.3 [a]-[b]). For example, in Warren St. … Whether a plaintiff can ultimately establish its allegations is not part of the calculus in determining a motion to dismiss {id.).

Foley v. Mobil Chemical Co.

170 Misc. 2d 1 · New York Supreme Court · May 31, 1996

This distinction is not important for Barnett’s motion, because, for the reasons stated below, Patrowich clearly compels a grant of summary judgment in his favor. … Compounding the anomaly is the fact that, in the latter case, the company itself may remain immune from liability under vicarious liability principles because it could not, or did not, have actual or constructive knowledge

Corning v. Roosevelt

25 Abb. N. Cas. 220 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1890

This principle is clearly in force under the Codes; because answering a pleading is a waiver of any defect in it that might have been taken by demurrer,, except the objection to sufficiency in substance, and to jurisdiction … , on demurrer to a special plea accompanying the general issue, object to the declaration ; and held that he may do so if the-defect in the declaration be such that it could not sustain a verdict And to.this extent they qualify

Home Insurance v. Pennsylvania Railroad

18 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 182 · New York Supreme Court · May 15, 1877

Beside that it' is very clearly apparent, that the case was submitted to the jury on the proposition that the defendant did not employ the improved or better smoke-stack then in use by other companies, and by which it was … It was qualified by a union with the rule that it involved the question whether the defendants used the best-known appliances in practical use.

Peter Reiss Construction Co. v. City of New York

183 Misc. 617 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 10, 1944

Although the plaintiff there alleged that the contract was duly awarded to the plaintiff, it was established that the City had not made any appropriation for the proposed work. … Also, as hereinabove indicated, this case shows clearly the necessity ior the consent of the Board of Estimate.

Foss v. Halloran & Narr, Inc.

26 Misc. 2d 114 · New York Supreme Court · May 23, 1960

established: That the book value of the stock of the plaintiff in the defendant corporation as of September 30, 1954 as set forth in the financial statement referred to in the contract, was $75,100, which reflected both … It indicates clearly that he himself did not believe that he had such an interest. To hold otherwise would be to permit the plaintiff to both have his cake and eat it too.

Broderick v. Aaron

151 Misc. 516 · New York Supreme Court · May 17, 1934

The defendant contends that the liability became certain, and the cause of action accrued, at the time of suspension of the bank, or, if not then, at the time when the receiver qualified and took charge of the assets and … Under the arrangement the stock clearly became a partnership asset, and the title to the stock vested in each member of the firm, and this is in nowise altered or affected by the mere private or personal understanding of

Cary v. Western Union Telephone Co.

20 Abb. N. Cas. 333 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1888

The defense under a general denial that there was no-valid contract would clearly be available, and that is all that is sought to be established in the case at bar. … Smith, J., in his opinion, says It is a well established rule of pleading, founded on the plainest!

Dumond v. Stringham

26 Barb. 104 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 7, 1857

But it seems to us the cases are clearly distinguishable. … It follows that the plaintiff, under the facts established at the trial, is entitled to one undivided sixth part of the one hundred acres in question, and that the judgment at the circuit should be affirmed.

People v. DiSimone

23 Misc. 3d 402 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 7, 2009

He argues that this evidence is insufficient to establish the crime of depraved indifference murder. … An indictment, or count thereof, may be dismissed in the interest of justice where “such dismissal is required as a matter of judicial discretion by the existence of some compelling factor, consideration or circumstance clearly

Roseboom v. Vechten

5 Denio 414 · New York Supreme Court · May 15, 1848

It might, perhaps, have been reversed on error, or set aside on motion; (5 Cruise's Dig. 276, ch. 14;) but clearly it cannot, for any such omission, be held void. … The fine was not only an “ act done” within this provision, but a right was thereby established.

People v. Tookes

52 Misc. 3d 956 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 8, 2016

In the instant case, the first question is whether the defendants’ motions qualify as applications for “resentencing.” Mr. Tookes and Mr. … There are clearly many state prison inmates who would present a more compelling case for such relief. But this court does not have any such choice to make here.

Fromkin v. Merrall Realty Inc.

30 Misc. 2d 288 · New York Supreme Court · May 8, 1961

C), the plaintiffs have not established by any credible proof that such agreement was made during the meeting of May 3, 1956. … In the present case the alleged agreement is essentially one not to engage in a competing business and is clearly within the province of the Statute of Frauds.”