Case law

Roth v. United Federation of Teachers

5 Misc. 3d 888 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 9, 2004

In contrast, communications protected by a qualified privilege do not provide the communicant with an immunity against the imposition of liability in a defamation action. … Once a qualified privilege is shown to exist, the burden of proof shifts to the plaintiff to offer evidentiary facts to establish that the communication was made in bad faith and was motivated solely by malice (see Liberman

People ex rel. Turner v. Plimley

17 Misc. 457 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1896

Having been placed by the commissioner .of jurors upon the list of those qualified as txiaj jurors within this city, he now applies to this court for a mandamus to compel the commissioner to strike his name therefrom,' on … His counsel has furnished the court, with a very able and erudite argument reviewing the. history of *459 trial by jury for the purpose of establishing his contention that at common law only those who were of the ■ vicinage

Klapper v. Guria

153 Misc. 2d 726 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 24, 1992

The doctrine of judicial immunity (see, Stump v Sparkman, 435 US 349 ; Word v City of Mount Vernon, 65 AD2d 622 , lv denied 47 NY2d 706 ) extends to non-Judges in the cloak of quasi-judicial immunity where they perform "discretionary … A prosecutor’s quasi-judicial immunity is well established.

People v. Perri

95 Misc. 2d 767 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 23, 1978

Furthermore, it has been established that a Federal Grand Jury, in the exercise of its investigative function, may compel a witness to provide such an exemplar, and then proceed to indict on the basis of this compelled evidence … To summarize: CPL 190.40, like CPL 50.10, is clearly worded, mandatory in nature (thereby requiring strict construction), and consistent with prior case law (People v Laino, 10 NY2d 161 , supra; People v Steuding, 6 NY2d

Dietrich v. Palisades Interstate Park Commission

114 Misc. 425 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 15, 1921

in those cases where it has expressly waived immunity or assumed liability by constitutional or legislative enactment.” … This doctrine was further securely established in the case of Locke v. State of New York, 140 N.

Glass v. Department of Health

64 Misc. 2d 880 · New York Supreme Court · Nov 25, 1970

Further, that it stigmatizes the Medicaid children, thereby creating two classes of children and causes the children who qualify for Medicaid to lose time from classwork. … addition to the differential in the cost between a Medicaid examination and that of an examination conducted at the school, it is contended that there is further waste since the physicians at the hospital do not afford immunization

In re Van Lindt

109 Misc. 2d 686 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1981

The difference between the two is clearly spelled out in Kastigar v United States ( 406 US 441 ). … transactional immunity.

Roth v. Cuevas

158 Misc. 2d 238 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 22, 1993

PROCEDURE GOVERNING INITIATIVE PETITIONS Municipal Home Rule Law § 37 establishes the procedure by which a proposal to amend a city charter made by qualified electors of the city can be placed on the ballot for public referendum … This language clearly envisions and encourages variation among the local laws of municipalities.

Slavenburg Soelling Corp. v. W. A. Assomull & Co.

29 Misc. 2d 232 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 17, 1961

This is clearly an admission of guilt on his part. … The individual defendant cannot claim immunity, nor hide behind the corporate veil, in an attempt to avoid liability for damages.

Breeze v. Town of Bethlehem

151 Misc. 2d 230 · New York Supreme Court · May 31, 1991

The effect of this principle, which derives from the Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution, is that unless Congress clearly and affirmatively declares that federal instrumentalities shall be subject to … Pursuant to this express grant of authority, Congress adopted title 39 of the United States Code which established the Postal Service, with the Postmaster General at its head, and authorizes him "to establish and maintain

Catskill Regional Off-Track Betting Corp. v. Village of Suffern

20 Misc. 3d 935 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 21, 2008

Petitioner further contends that the alleged violations can only be enforced by county and not local government, such as respondents, and that it is immune from such local regulations. … However, 19 NYCRR 1201.2 (c) qualifies that authority and provides, in relevant part: “A county or a city which participates in a regional off-track betting corporation established pursuant to article V of the Racing, Pari-Mutuel

Franklin v. Mandeville

57 Misc. 2d 1072 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 10, 1968

The County Attorney in a letter to the Board dated December 8, 1937 clearly indicated what happened to these votes. … This is clearly established by an examination of the general powers of the Board as found in section 102 of the County Charter: “ The governing body of the county shall be the board of supervisors which, except as otherwise

Smelts v. Meloni

5 Misc. 3d 773 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 22, 2004

In support of the motions for leave to amend the answers, counsel submitted an affidavit, citing inadvertence as the reason for not including the defense of qualified governmental immunity in the original pleadings. … There are decisions suggesting that it would constitute an abuse of discretion for a court to permit an amendment of a pleading if the proponent of the motion failed to establish a reasonable cause for a delay (see e.g.

In re Deitz

87 Misc. 610 · New York Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1914

Charter, § 1586, As will hereafter be noted, the office of supervisor in the county of Kings was established or recognized as existing as early as the year 1691. … We think the two sections above referred to dispose of the question under consideration, and it follows that the section of the charter above quoted is clearly in contravention of the section of the Constitution.”

In re Grilli

110 Misc. 45 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1920

Similar enactments have existed in this state for many years, clearly showing that the right to vote did not of itself carry with it the right of jury service. … petitioner 1 Does this amendment violate the part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which provides: “ * * * No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities

Arglo Painting Corp. v. Board of Education

47 Misc. 2d 618 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 26, 1965

Painting Corp., hereinafter called “Arglo”, a bidder of work involving repairing, painting and refinishing of a school in the Borough of Brooklyn, seeks an order (1) directing the Board of Education of the City of New York to qualify … The fact that Arglo submitted the lowest bid did not, as a matter of law, establish it as the lowest responsible bidder.

Lief v. Hynes

98 Misc. 2d 817 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 9, 1979

Thus, the two benefits are clearly not equal. One springs from a constitutional right which is waived. … Based upon the above, the petitioner has not established the unreasonableness of the legislative enactment.

Grant v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

96 Misc. 2d 683 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 7, 1978

Status of the MTA and LIRR Since under subdivision 5 of section 1266 of the Public Authorities Law, the MTA is authorized to delegate its conferred powers to subsidiary corporations which shall have "all the privileges, immunities … The MTA was established by the Metropolitan Commuter Transportation Act (L 1965, ch 324; Public Authorities Law, *685 §§ 1260-1278).

Owen v. Fisher

189 Misc. 69 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 3, 1947

In no legal sense has the defendant been granted immunity of any kind — certainly not immunity which is as broad and comprehensive as the privilege itself. (Matter of Doyle, 257 N. Y. 244 .) … The immunity must be as broad as the privilege destroyed:” And again at page 265: “ The witness is within his privilege in insisting that the basis for his immunity shall be something more substantial than the grace or favor

Cangold, Inc. v. Rickles

11 Misc. 2d 814 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 21, 1958

Defendants’ third contention is that an agent for a disclosed principal, acting within the scope of his authority, is not liable for a breach of the contract unless the intent to bind himself personally clearly appears. … Nor did the codefendants acquire immunity for their acts because they were acting as agents. (2 Restatement, Agency, § 343, p. 753.)