Case law

Bernardine v. City of New York

182 Misc. 609 · New York Supreme Court · Nov 24, 1943

The burden of establishing such extension rests upon him. Governmental immunity admits of no exception other than that which the Legislature has enacted. … In construing statutes designed for the removal of such immunity courts will never go beyond their clearly expressed provisions. (Sutherland on Statutory Construction [1st ed.] par. 371; Leppard v. O’Brien, 225 App.

District 27 Community School Board v. Board of Education

130 Misc. 2d 398 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1986

The children in this suit are clearly handicapped within the meaning of Section 706 (7) [Rehabilitation Act]. … Clearly, the dictatorial imposition of a universal answer under the guise of statutory compliance is not it.

Universal Oil Products Co. v. Shell Development Co.

196 Misc. 497 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 6, 1949

The issue in the Hamilton case is clearly distinguishable from that in the instant action. In United States v. … Resort to the policy of the law may be had to ameliorate its seeming harshness or to qualify its apparent [absoluteness] as Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U. S. 457 illustrates.

In re World Trade Center Bombing Litigation

3 Misc. 3d 440 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 20, 2004

In determining whether the alleged negligent acts qualify as a governmental activity deserving of immunity, or a proprietary act subjecting the public entity to tort liability, “ ‘[i]t is the specific act or omission out … This the Court found actionable, and outside the boundaries of the policy-based immunity established in Weiner. (Crosland v New York City Tr. Auth., 68 NY2d at 170.)

Kiwanis Club of Great Neck, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Kiwanis International

83 Misc. 2d 1075 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 13, 1975

The provisions of this subchapter shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public”. … This policy of noninterference with private clubs was clearly expressed by Mr.

People v. Berger

197 Misc. 915 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 27, 1950

It is granted the'defendant never requested such immunity, but even though he had, the immunity would not cover him for perjury. The decision in People v. … From this decision, and others on the same subject, the principle seems clearly established that, where an oath may be legally adminis *919 tered immunity is granted in exchange for honest testimony, but the cloak is not

Ofenloch v. Gaynor

66 Misc. 2d 185 · New York Supreme Court · May 14, 1970

In this case the qualified voters are the voters of the 56 school districts in the County of Nassau which are the component members of defendant BOCES. … [d]), which defines ‘ civil judicial proceeding ’, is clearly broad enough to include the instant proceeding, defining a ‘ civil judicial proceeding ’ as a ‘ prosecution, other than a criminal action, of an independent application

Hurwitz v. New York City Commission on Human Rights

142 Misc. 2d 214 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 9, 1988

to and the practice of certain professions” (Education Law § 6500), including dentistry and dental hygiene (Education Law § 6600), defines the practice of dentistry and the use of the title of dentist, provides for the establishment … In addition, the argument clearly lacks merit. Petitioner claims that because the word "qualified” is used in section 8-108 it refers only to employment matters.

Charter One Bank v. Midtown Rochester

191 Misc. 2d 154 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 5, 2002

“Whether or not privileged, a record may qualify in whole or in part as attorney work product, or even trial preparation materials.” (Spectrum Sys. at 381.) … The strongest position of plaintiff shows only that it saw a document, which it did not identify clearly as the Harter, Secrest & Emery memo; that it read only a portion of the document; and that the document was kept by

People v. Breindel

73 Misc. 2d 734 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 16, 1973

In establishing the existence of.the requisite intent where, the only evidence consists of the contemnor’s Grand Jury testimony (cf. People v. … This subdivision defines “ immunity ” as follows: '“Immunity.’

Delta Financial Corp. v. Morrison

15 Misc. 3d 308 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 26, 2007

The CPLR establishes three categories of protected materials: privileged matter, which is afforded absolute immunity from discovery (CPLR 3101 [b]); attorney’s work product, which is also afforded absolute immunity (CPLR … Consequently, the burden of establishing any right to protection is on the parties asserting it; the protection claimed must be narrowly construed; and its application must be consistent with the purposes underlying immunity

Faculty-Student Ass'n v. City of Albany

17 Misc. 2d 404 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 9, 1959

The plaintiff, a domestic corporation, sues in equity to void and cancel of record taxes levied against parcels of real property owned by it on the ground that it qualifies for exemption from taxation under the provisions … The defendants dis *407 pute plaintiff’s right to exemption and urge that neither of the statute’s required correlatives has been established.

Scott v. City of New Rochelle

44 Misc. 3d 366 · New York Supreme Court · May 21, 2014

At the very least, the defendants argue that the officers present at the time of the search are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity The defendants have met their prima facie burden establishing that they were entitled to summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as asserted against them under the doctrine of qualified immunity

Connelly v. Department of Agriculture & Markets

162 Misc. 73 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1937

It has provided for granting to qualified individuals the privilege of acting under license from the State as officials or licensees vested with power and authority to weigh coal and coke. … The privilege so granted clearly cannot be held to be a vested right, nor do we believe it can be termed property.

Cheatum v. Wehle

6 Misc. 2d 988 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1957

The first separate defense based on the qualified privilege of fair comment on a matter of public interest and concern is sufficient in law. … His position is clearly untenable.

Lee v. City of Rochester

174 Misc. 2d 763 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 19, 1997

Defendants’ effort to show that the entire statement, though inaccurate, was true enough to preclude liability even in the *778 absence of qualified immunity, is without merit, and does not warrant extended discussion. 1 … Mistakes of that kind are precisely what the qualified privilege is designed to protect. Chechak and the City would clearly be entitled to summary judgment on common-law qualified immunity grounds. 3.

Weilamann v. Chase Manhattan Bank

21 Misc. 2d 1086 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 1, 1959

contention of the plaintiffs is that the moneys in the bank accounts in the names of the State Bank of the USSR and the Foreign Trade Bank of the USSR are property of the State itself, namely, the USSR, and it has been so established … Here, the State Department’s position, as indicated by the suggestion of interest and the letter of March 9, 1959, is clearly to the effect that this court should deny to plaintiffs the relief sought in this action.

Baumann v. Long Island Power Authority

45 Misc. 3d 257 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 3, 2014

LIPA is a public authority established in 1986 pursuant to the Long Island Power Authority Act (Public Authorities Law § 1020 et seq.). … Clearly, the transmission of electricity by LIPA and National Grid is a proprietary act, not governmental, depriving defendants the protection of the cloak of governmental immunity.

Clamp v. Hales

10 Misc. 3d 988 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 14, 2005

The Georges argue that Clamp was clearly in the course of business when the accident occurred and, therefore, that the third-party action may not be maintained unless Hales pleads and proves that Clamp sustained a grave injury … George because, if the operator of the vehicle is immune from suit under the Workers’ Compensation Law, the owner is also immune from suit.

Cardali v. Slater

56 Misc. 3d 1003 · New York Supreme Court · May 18, 2017

Clearly, charging the client for outside counsel fees and collecting the full contingency fee is double-billing. … “Under New York law, communications protected by a qualified privilege do not provide the communicant with an immunity against the imposition of liability in a defamation action.