Case law

People v. Thomas

160 Misc. 2d 39 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 10, 1994

Defendant elected to testify before the Grand Jury and a witness, who also waived immunity, testified on behalf of Hargrove. … An analysis of CPL 190.50 (5) establishes that a defendant has a right to appear and testify on his own behalf.

Posen v. United Aircraft Products, Inc.

201 Misc. 260 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1952

Section 10 confers certain qualified rights upon stockholders of domestic corporations. Petitioner is a director (not a stockholder) of a foreign corporation. … Most of the specific details establishing these facts are not disputed by the petitioner.

C. D. M. Products, Inc. v. City of New York

76 Misc. 2d 369 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1973

Concluding that their guns, as presently manufactured, would not be able to meet the requisite 45-point minimum qualifying score on the “ Factoring Criteria ”, plaintiffs refused to comply with such request. … That means that in this instance plaintiffs must clearly establish that the subject ordinance is invalid.

People ex rel. Vario v. Krueger

58 Misc. 2d 1023 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 3, 1969

Clearly, no matter what the proceeding is called, petitioner has a right of appeal and, pending that determination, should not have to languish in jail. … Woodruff, 50 Misc 2d 430 ; see also 13 Annual Report of Judicial Council 1947, 236, 237). * * * Instead, the contempt committed before the grand jury was established in court at the hearing held for this purpose, and punishment

Serth v. New York State Department of Transportation

104 Misc. 2d 545 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1980

Petitioner alleges and the Department of Civil Service admits that she qualified for the positions of transportation construction inspector I and II under the job description given by DOT. … This court is not pleased with the consequences of this decision, in that many persons who may be both highly qualified and actually filling important positions may have their employment terminated.

Huppe v. Twenty-First Century Restaurants of America, Inc.

130 Misc. 2d 736 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 16, 1985

The affidavit of Peter Dikeos, submitted by plaintiffs after argument of this motion, is clearly neither the statement of one with personal knowledge of any relevant facts nor the opinion of a qualified expert as to the " … Since plaintiffs clearly intended to purchase hot coffee and since coffee is customarily served and intended to be consumed as a hot beverage, plaintiffs must present evidentiary facts establishing that the coffee served

Hartley v. Ring

58 Misc. 2d 618 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 7, 1969

Disclosure has been ordered in some cases which do not fit clearly into one of the foregoing categories. In Rivera v. … [a]) is clearly in harmony with the afore-mentioned Allen case. Professor David D. Siegel states in the Practice Commentary (McKinney’s Cons.

Tiedemann v. Tiedemann

115 Misc. 462 · New York Supreme Court · May 15, 1921

A uniform series of authorities clearly uphold the rigid rule of the Statute of Frauds hut clearly enunciate the rule that the Statute of Frauds cannot he used as an instrument of fraud. In the case of Wood v. … This would charge him with notice that the plaintiff was in possession, and thereby charge him with knowledge of any right which the person in possession is able to establish.”

In re Restaino

37 Misc. 3d 586 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 29, 2012

and clearly needs a guardian of the person as well. … funds for the purpose of establishing an “irrevocable funeral trust” with a reputable funeral establishment in the State of New York for future burial expenses.

People v. Kase

94 Misc. 2d 999 · New York Supreme Court · May 31, 1978

As Judge Lumbard points out, if the government wanted the testimony it could grant the defendant immunity, compelled his testimony, and upon the defendant’s continued refusal to co-operate he would then have been subject … Such consideration in mitigation is clearly proper (see People v Dolkart, 60 AD2d 238 ; Penal Law, § 65.00, subd 1, par [b]; United States v Sweig, 454 F2d 181).

Cassese v. Lindsay

51 Misc. 2d 59 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1966

The subject of the instant action, namely, the Police Commissioner’s General Order No. 14, concerns the establishment of a Civilian Complaint Review Board. … Clearly, “ a man may make use of the judgment of another upon whom he can depend, and the valuation of that person is his if he chooses to adopt it” (Bangor Sav. Bank v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., 85 Me. 68, 75 ; Simons v.

M'Farland v. Smith

6 Cow. 669 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 15, 1827

He uses the plural noun, without adding the qualifying terms, or any of them; and the very nature and object of the undertaking seem to imply an expectation and understanding on the part of the defendant, that the creditors … It was clearly proved that there were other creditors of Richard besides the plaintiff, by some of whom he was sued. On these grounds, we are of opinion that the verdict ought to be set aside, and a new trial granted.

Spires v. Lighthouse Solutions, LLC

4 Misc. 3d 428 · New York Supreme Court · May 6, 2004

This document does not qualify under the statute as an operating agreement of Lighthouse Solutions, LLC. 2. … Although qualifying as an operating agreement by its form, it is no longer effective and expired in June 2002. 3.

Unitarian Universalist Church of Central Nassau v. Shorten

63 Misc. 2d 978 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 31, 1970

In the face of the legislative policy thus clearly and strongly stated and restated, the village’s zoning policy cannot stand. … Clearly, the Bureau of Fire Prevention was aware of petitioner’s request and should not be permitted, in dealing with a village property owner whom it was established to serve, to hide behind the differentiation between the

Mackell v. Palermo

59 Misc. 2d 760 · New York Supreme Court · May 19, 1969

. *763 Justice Clark clearly stated (p. 439) that “ as against the right of an individual that his person he held inviolable, even against so slight an intrusion as is involved in applying a blood test * * # must be set the … He is merely a suspect against whom the District Attorney has thus far established no probable cause warranting an arrest. True it is that in Rigney v.

Johnson v. Albany & Susquehanna Railroad

5 Lans. 222 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1871

The debt clearly could not be recovered again if the statute was not plead, as the judgment would be a bar. It is not the statute which concludes the party, but the judgment. … Where *229 a judgment is shown, it establishes that there has been an adjudication of the subject-matter of the controversy, and there is no case which holds that because the judgment is predicated upon the statute of limitations

Strauss v. Hannig

170 Misc. 371 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 1, 1938

In cardiac cases history and subjective manifestations are regarded as important perhaps as clinical findings in establishing a prognosis. … It would be a refinement of cruelty, as well as scientifically unwarranted, to deny the petitioner an opportunity to follow his chosen profession, to qualify himself for which he has made inordinate sacrifices and in which

Pataki v. New York State Assembly

190 Misc. 2d 716 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 17, 2002

This power will be sufficient to correct a case where the Governor has clearly gone wrong in his budget. … The alternative would be the striking out the items of appropriation thus qualified in toto and a possible deadlock over details on a political question outside the field of judicial review.”

Cooper v. Trustees of the First Presbyterian Church

32 Barb. 222 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 23, 1860

Clearly not concluded. … If the authorities settle any thing, they demonstrate and establish this conclusion. *235 [Schenectady Special Term, July 23, 1860. Bockes, Justice.]

People v. Badgley

16 Wend. 53 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1836

It is said the note, the purport of which is set forth in the indictment, if conceded to have been counterfeited by the defendant, would not establish the crime of forgery. … The admission of the defendant that he forged the note is very full and explicit, though made under circumstances and with an object that might well qualify its effect, were it not for the other evidence in the case.