Case law

Klinge v. Ithaca College

167 Misc. 2d 458 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 30, 1995

Clearly, the professors enjoyed a qualified privilege to report matters to College authorities which, however false and defamatory, were relevant to the common interest of the faculty and the institution (Stukuls v State … It is well established, in the law of defamation, that the qualified privilege to publish false and defamatory matter may be lost if misused (Stukuls v State of New York, supra).

Weeks v. City of New York

181 Misc. 2d 39 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1999

At one time, tort actions against the City were subject to dismissal because of government immunity. … Construing the facts in a light most favorable to plaintiffs, a trier of fact could conclude that the elements necessary to establish a claim for negligent entrustment are present in this case.

Z.T. v. Long Is. Coll. Hosp.

New York Supreme Court · Jul 12, 2016

The child therefore qualifies, under Public Health Law §2999-h, to be provided with all future health care costs, as defined in Public Health Law §2999-h(3), through the New York State Medical Indemnity Fund (MIF), established … However, the MIF is clearly applicable to qualifying claims presented to the Trust.

People v. Evans

57 Misc. 3d 320 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 7, 2017

The evidence presented to the grand jury clearly established that on December 8, 2016, defendant not only reported to work in an intoxicated condition, but that he proceeded to leave the station house, drove a police vehicle … Defendant’s motion to dismiss based upon the introduction to the grand jury of any immunized statements or for a Kastigar hearing is held in abeyance pending the outcome of the Huntley hearing. .

Ingersoll v. Curran

188 Misc. 1003 · New York Supreme Court · May 13, 1947

It is true that the law in question establishes a difference in the machinery and mechanics between a nomination by a political party of a person who is an enrolled member of that party and óf a person who is not. … Before a court should declare a statute of the Legislature void it must be clearly shown that the statute is irreconcilable with the Constitution.

S. S. Silberblatt, Inc. v. Phalen

41 Misc. 2d 899 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1964

They are made upon information and belief, and the affidavits submitted to support these allegations fail to set forth any facts to establish the conclusions alleged. … (Italics mine.) *906 In view of the information before the Fund, this court cannot say that its determination that petitioner was not a qualified, responsible and reliable bidder was clearly arbitrary and without foundation

Fenson v. State Liquor Authority

152 Misc. 446 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 27, 1934

but a privilege, and that its regulation rests in the discretion of the governing authorities and may be delegated, the court said (p. 260): “ ‘ Now, if the State may prohibit the sale of liquor altogether, since it is clearly … not a “ privilege or an immunity ” in the meaning of the Constitution, may it not authorize the sale on such terms, by such persons, and at such places, as it thinks proper?

Roth v. Robertson

64 Misc. 343 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 15, 1909

For reasons of public policy, we are clearly of the opinion that payments of corporate funds for such purposes as those disclosed in this case must be condemned, and officers of a corporation making them held to a strict … To hold any other rule would be establishing a dangerous precedent, and tacitly countenancing the wasting of corporate funds for purposes of corrupting public morals.

Rucker v. Board of Education

172 Misc. 731 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 7, 1939

. ; ■ It is thus clearly settled that a municipal corporation cannot be examined before trial, " ■ " The question to be determined, then, is whether the. board of education of the, city of New York is a municipal corporation … And subdivision 1 of séction'3 Of the General Corporation Law states: “ A‘ municipal corporation’ includes a county, town, school district, village and city and any other territorial, division of the State established by

Robbins v. Chamberlain

189 Misc. 1020 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 24, 1947

It is the settled and wise policy of the State that every qualified voter should be safeguarded in the right to vote. … Div. 235 ) is cited as a case in point but is clearly distinguishable. Seld was in the Navy stationed at Sampson, New York. His wife was a teacher in Seneca Falls.

M.M. v. T.M.

50 Misc. 3d 565 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 10, 2015

To hold otherwise would leave the TSP as a form of federal retirement benefit immune from the claims of family creditors. … An IOLA is an account established under the Judiciary Law. (Judiciary Law § 497.) .

O'Connor v. Eppig

14 Misc. 2d 641 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 31, 1958

Such additional credit shall be added to the final earned rating of such member after he or she has qualified in an examination and shall be granted only at the time of establishment of an eligible list, except that eligible … That list was also established in 1953.

People v. Einhorn

74 Misc. 2d 958 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 16, 1973

room, Einhorn stated that he understood the offered immunity and the meaning of perjury and contempt. … Renaghan, 40 A D 2d 150), which was clearly present in this case. A witness who urges legal grounds for refusing to answer questions does so at his peril.

Merrick Community Nursery School v. Young

11 Misc. 2d 576 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 23, 1958

It then held (p. 526): “ Thus church and school and accessory uses are, in themselves, clearly in furtherance of the public morals and general welfare * * * and ‘ an educational institution, whose curriculum complies with … The respondent argues that it is not discriminatory to distinguish between public schools generally and private nursery schools, and that the latter cannot enjoy equal immunity from zoning regulations.

Becraft v. Strobel

158 Misc. 844 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 2, 1936

election and throughout his term of office,” violates both the State and Federal Constitutions, in that said requirement “is an unlawful 'test for public office ” and is “an unwarranted invasion of the rights, privileges and immunities … My conclusion is that petitioner has failed to establish that his title to the office of supervisor of the town of Ohio is free from reasonable doubt; hence he is not a “ public officer.”

People v. Miranda

115 Misc. 2d 533 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 22, 1982

The amendment has apparently modified previous law which clearly made a distinction between pretrial discovery materials on one hand and evidence on the other, and clearly circumscribed the use of a subpoena duces tecum to … To the extent that any portion of the items subpoenaed herein would fail to qualify as potential evidence it will be redacted before disclosure to the defendant’s attorney prior to trial.

Bacon v. Board of Education

205 Misc. 73 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1953

The other claimed precedents relied upon by the plaintiffs are also clearly distinguishable. The temporary instructor in Dexter v. Board of Higher Educ. of City of New York ( 293 N. … The policy I here deprecate clearly weakens if it does not deprive them of that protection.

Hollis v. Wagar

1 Lans. 4 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1869

He testified to facts within his knowledge; *6 and it was clearly for the jury to decide from these facts, what damages his statement established. … It called for his opinion upon a question of fact, which it was clearly the province of the jury to decide; and for this reason, also, was inadmissible.

Andrews v. Andreoli

92 Misc. 2d 410 · New York Supreme Court · Nov 18, 1977

Clearly, the "cloak of confidentiality” essential to invocation of the privilege is established, as Mr. … Once the privilege has been established, however, the measurement of its life, i.e., the period of time in which the privilege will exist to immunize the journalist from disclosure, presents an entirely different problem.

People v. Goetz

135 Misc. 2d 888 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 5, 1987

This evidence clearly would be noncumulative as demonstrated by Allen’s *890 pretrial statements and an interview of him and Troy Canty by the National Enquirer. … Once the defendant establishes a right to the missing witness charge, the burden shifts to the prosecutor to account for the absence of the witness or to demonstrate that the charge would be inappropriate.