Case law

People v. Aliaj

36 Misc. 3d 682 · New York Supreme Court · May 21, 2012

That test, however, was clearly unreliable. … It is offered to show that while Officer Re was trained and qualified to give Mr. Alia] a field test, he was not trained or qualified to give him a chemical test. .

Dillon v. Humphreys

56 Misc. 2d 211 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 8, 1968

In this case, however, the testimony of defendant clearly indicates that the collision would have occurred even if plaintiffs had been wearing seat belts. … A plaintiff’s carelessness does not serve to immunize a defendant from tort liability unless such conduct contributed to the accident which caused plaintiff’s injuries.

City of New York v. Blum

121 Misc. 2d 982 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 22, 1982

Although it is well-established law that the State is immune from any suit except where it has specifically consented thereto by express constitutional or legislative enactment (see Psaty v Duryea, 306 NY 413 ), this does … Petitioner clearly was informed of the temporary nature of the arrangement and given due notice that more appropriate long-range alternative facilities would have to be found.

Baer v. Leppert

19 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 516 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1878

If, therefore, the conduct,' or acts of the indorser be equivocal, or if the language used be of a qualified or uncertain nature, the indorser will not be held responsible.” … The evidence given neither established a promise on the part of the indorsers to pay, nor any unequivocal concession of their liability, from which a promise might perhaps be inferred.

Maison Prunier v. Prunier's Restaurant & Cafe, Inc.

159 Misc. 551 · New York Supreme Court · May 13, 1936

Whatever may have been the ancient rule, it is now clearly established that the two products need not be competitive. “ It was at first a debatable point whether a merchant’s good will, indicated by'his mark, could extend … of which should stand moral wrong with legal liability and upon the other moral wrong with legal immunity.

Montanez v. City of New York Department of Buildings

8 Misc. 3d 405 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 27, 2005

Respondents argue that the determination that petitioner was not qualified for a master plumber’s license was not arbitrary because petitioner failed to establish that his experience was gained while he was under the “direct … Section 26-146 of the code, however, clearly contemplates that experience gained anywhere in the country could be deemed acceptable for purposes of obtaining a license.

Kent v. Manchester

29 Barb. 595 · New York Supreme Court · May 17, 1859

The mistake must not only be established to the satisfaction of the court, but it must be a mutual mistake. … The testimony fails, however, to establish either of these points.

Wolf v. Davis

108 Misc. 2d 19 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 25, 1981

In Richardson on Evidence (§ 210 [10th ed]), it is pointed out that the cases now clearly establish that an admission is not received in evidence solely for the purpose of discrediting a party by showing that he has made … Nor can the names and addresses of “admission” witnesses qualify as material prepared for litigation.

People v. White

14 Wend. 111 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1835

But what he says upon such examination cannot be proved by viva voce testimony, unless it be clearly shown that in fact the examination never was reduced in writing. … The declarations or confessions of the prisoner are therefore competent evidence to establish any fact which could be legally proved in any other manner.

Freedman v. Suffolk County Board of Supervisors

52 Misc. 2d 670 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 4, 1967

The instant attempt to achieve that end clearly violates the salutary provisions of the Constitution. … Unquestionably educational attainment may be used as a qualifying element for admission to a competitive examination, but its use as a substitute for competition cannot be condoned.

Delan v. CBS, Inc.

111 Misc. 2d 928 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 9, 1981

But having obtained a doctorate in the field of psychology does not concomitantly obtain a license or authorization to treat mental diseases or qualify as someone versed in the art of medicine or healing; nor does it legally … “Clearly, *940 the First Amendment is not a shibboleth before which all other rights must succumb.” (Le Mistral, Inc. v Columbia Broadcasting System, supra, p 494).

People v. Lawson

84 Misc. 2d 24 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 22, 1975

The specific issue litigated was whether the buyer had sufficient experience with marihuana to qualify as an expert and thus be permitted to give his opinion that the consumed material was marihuana. … The Court of Appeals found the buyer’s qualifications or expertise were not established.

Beninati v. Oldsmobile Division of General Motors

94 Misc. 2d 835 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 6, 1978

Clearly, the 1976 action does not comply with the statute. Causes of action numbered third, fifth and seventh are dismissed. Plaintiff represents passengers in an automobile belonging to another. … (Codling v Paglia, 32 NY2d 330, 340 ): "Manufacturers of articles which may be a source of danger to several people if not properly manufactured should not be immune from liability for breach of implied warranty, a tortious

Harvey v. Skillman's

22 Wend. 571 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1840

S. 29, § 34, 2d ed. an executor or administrator may give notice within six months after taking letters, for all creditors to present and establish their claims in a summary way against the estate. … S. 508, § 1, 2d ed., as qualified by id. 509, § 5, and by id. 514, § 38.

Stanton v. Board of Education

190 Misc. 1012 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 24, 1948

, whatever one may choose, or an unrestricted and unbridled license that gives immunity for every possible use of language and prevents thé punishment of those who abuse this freedom. … As I indicated upon the argument, the law is well established that courts will not interfere with the exercise of discretion entrusted by law to public officers or bodies unless it be clearly demonstrated that the act complained

Gay Alliance of Genesee Valley, Inc. v. City Assessor

158 Misc. 2d 127 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 6, 1993

In addition, the City’s last-minute discovery demands are so clearly frivolous that this court orders a hearing on possible sanctions under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1. 1 FACTS The Gay Alliance of Genesee Valley has among its purposes … ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State * * * subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

Jackson ex. rel. Cadwell v. King

4 Cow. 207 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 15, 1825

The testimony adduced at the trial clearly shows that he is not included in the legal definition of that term. … established. ; and will relieve by making void the instrument (Bright v.

People v. Burnet

25 Misc. 3d 307 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 1, 2009

appeared to blow into the machine, but when he failed to provide a sufficient breath sample, was deemed to have constructively refused. 6 Conclusions of Law As stated, the purpose for which this court ordered a hearing was clearly … Notwithstanding the clearly stated purpose for which this court ordered a Frye hearing, the assistant district attorney inexplicably failed to present any testimony, scientific or otherwise, to establish the scientific reliability

New Jersey & Pennsylvania Concentrating Works v. Ackermann

15 Misc. 605 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 15, 1896

only for a definite, and separate proportion of the amount of the loss, and that upon- the loss being ascertained and liquidated it becomes his duty, and. his only, to pay it-; and ’ yet, under this stipulation, he enjoys immunity … The distinction, however, is clearly made in the case of D. & H. Canal Co. v. Pa. Coal Co., 50 N. Y. 250 .

Baty v. City of Binghamton

141 Misc. 127 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 3, 1931

The damages aré clearly not excessive, upon all of the evidence in reference to the injuries sustained by plaintiff. … Reasons for immunity in one case and liability in the other, have been clearly shown not to be satisfactory.