Case law

Goldberg v. Hirschberg

10 Misc. 3d 292 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 26, 2005

Bank, 248 AD2d 219 [1st Dept 1998] [party asserting work product protection bears the burden of establishing nonwaiver of the protection].) … As Professor Conners notes in his commentaries, the material is either confidential and thus protected under CPLR 3101 (b) or it falls within CPLR 3101 (d) (2), which enjoys only conditional immunity. (Patrick M.

Belle v. New York City Transit Authority

157 Misc. 2d 76 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 18, 1993

established in Weiner” (Crosland v New York City Tr. … The issue at bar is not one of allocating police resources or providing security, which is clearly a governmental function.

Bush Terminal Co. v. City of New York

152 Misc. 144 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1934

The plan, read as a whole, imposes no such restriction upon the right of the Port Authority to establish inland terminals. … Clearly the exemption in the instant case is not the result of a bill “ private or local ” in terms or in effect.

People v. Distributors Division, Smoked Fish Workers Union, Local No. 20377

169 Misc. 255 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 24, 1938

It was established that the membership of the Distributors Division consisted of merchants engaged in the business of buying and selling smoked fish. … Particularly is this applicable here, where an organization has garbed itself in the robes of union immunity, in order to further its illegal purposes.

Calhoun v. Allen

38 Misc. 3d 171 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 28, 2011

The Alamo defendants rely upon the affidavit of Clark Dubin to establish that each Alamo defendant is entitled to the protection of the Graves Amendment. Mr. … The records can be accessed for a small fee, once an account is established.

Fallon v. Board of Higher Education

14 Misc. 2d 9 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 26, 1958

“The board shall establish positions, departments, divisions and faculties; appoint and in accordance with the provisions of law fix salaries of teachers and other employees therein”. (Education Law, § 6202.) … This court cannot compel the Board to appoint the petitioner, no matter how well qualified he may be.

Caryl S. v. Child & Adolescent Treatment Services, Inc.

161 Misc. 2d 563 · New York Supreme Court · May 10, 1994

The "orbit of duty” in such situations is clearly limited to "specifically foreseeable parties [and] at the same time * * * contain[s] liability to manageable levels” (Strauss v Belle Realty Co., 65 NY2d 399 , 404, supra; … These facts are by no means deemed established, and are merely recounted here to set the backdrop to the allegations in the complaint and to furnish a framework for viewing the claims of the parties.

Malley v. Farley

32 Misc. 3d 819 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 7, 2011

Further, as the respondents unquestionably suspended the subject license, the petitioners clearly suffered a deprivation thereof (id.). … The United States Supreme Court has set forth a narrow exception to this shield of immunity usually afforded to individuals acting in their official capacities (id.).

Jane W. v. John W.

137 Misc. 2d 24 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 21, 1987

This application concerns the right of a defendant father, who has been diagnosed as having Acquired Immune *25 Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) to visit pendente lite with his 1 Vi-year-old daughter. … Clearly in the present matter there are no "exceptional circumstances” to require limitation of visitation.

Long v. Somervell

175 Misc. 119 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 11, 1940

As stated in the pleadings, pursuant to authority conferred by the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935, the President of the United States, by executive order, established the Works Progress Administration, for the … The rule of immunity, the reason for which is found in public policy, applies to defendant as if the act had been performed by the superior officer himself. (Cooper v. O’Connor, 99 F. [2d] 135.)

Buffalo & State Line Rail Road v. Reynolds

6 How. Pr. 96 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 15, 1851

The main object of the defendant’s affidavit is to establish the contract with the Dunkirk and State Line Rail Road Co. for the sale of the land. … In the present case there is nothing in the language of the act qualifying the words disprove and proof, and their meaning, at common law, is clearly defined.

Schuster v. City of New York

207 Misc. 1102 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 6, 1953

To warrant a potential recovery plaintiff must establish a duty running to his intestate and a violation of that duty. Of course, if there was no duty, there could be no violation (Palsgraf v. Long Island R. R. … The waiver of sovereign immunity by section 8 of the Court of Claims Act (L. 1939, ch. 860) does not affect the matter.

Wulbrecht v. Jehle

28 Misc. 3d 808 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 14, 2010

The physicians’ argument is essentially that expert testimony (whether their own or *815 from another qualified physician) regarding compliance with a generally accepted standard of care is unnecessary for a psychiatrist … Must a psychiatrist moving for summary judgment submit expert testimony (from either the defendant psychiatrist or another qualified physician) to demonstrate conformity with established standards of medical care?

Neulist v. County of Nassau

108 Misc. 2d 160 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 5, 1981

In order to prevail on a malicious prosecution cause of action, the plaintiff must establish (1) the commencement or continuation of a criminal proceeding by the defendant against the plaintiff; (2) the termination of the … Clearly, the finding that there was no lack of good faith by the police officers was necessary to the determination of the action before Judge Mishler.

People v. Hughes

159 Misc. 2d 663 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 8, 1992

Here, the People failed to establish this element; they neither submitted a lab report pursuant to CPL 190.30 nor presented expert testimony establishing that the substance was a "controlled substance”. … After hearing the testimony of defendant Myron Hughes in which he clearly raised an alibi defense, the Grand Jury voted to recall Trooper Jaroszewski.

AEP Resources Service Co. v. Long Island Power Authority

179 Misc. 2d 639 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 1, 1999

The court rejects this contention; the contract is clearly a “project” within the meaning of the statute. … Public Authorities Law § 1020-f (aa) establishes four criteria for PACE review of contracts such as are at issue.

Arnold v. Gramercy Co.

30 Misc. 2d 852 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 13, 1961

In the present ease, plaintiff’s attorney, while stating that the plaintiff accepted defendant’s offer, was clearly qualifying the acceptance with conditions and reservations. … The plaintiff has failed to establish that a binding contract was entered into and therefore is not entitled to specific performance.

Corcoran v. New York Central Railroad

100 Misc. 192 · New York Supreme Court · May 15, 1917

It is further contended that the change required by an act of the legislature eliminating the use of steam engines in the city of New York and an order of the public service commission establishing a local service between … The right of one to use his own property in any way he chooses is qualified by the duty to so use it as not to injure his neighbor.

Genger v. Genger

50 Misc. 3d 361 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 22, 2015

As “[a] nonparty, nondomiciliary witness is clearly not subject to the subpoena power of the court,” the requirement that there be no other available means of acquiring jurisdiction over the nondomiciliary apparently applies … For all of these reasons, Parnés has established that he is entitled to immunity from service of the subpoena. III.

Snow & Bush v. Judson

38 Barb. 210 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 1, 1862

The patent, while it confers an ex- *213 elusive privilege upon the legal owner of the right, as respects the use of the invention, or the continuance, confers no right or privilege beyond that, and secures no immunity either … This is clearly shown in the case of Hallett v. Novion, ( 14 John. 278 ; S.