Case law

Bush v. City of New York

195 Misc. 2d 882 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 22, 2003

Absent any pronouncement by the Court of Appeals or the Appellate Division where the action is pending or any other department, the doctrine of stare decisis does not require the trial court to follow as precedent a point established … Indeed, the Court’s finding that the disputed “clause calls for partial not full indemnification of the general contractor,” clearly indicates that the Court was limited to deciding that issue.

People v. Morrell

21 Wend. 563 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1839

The statute declares what would necessarily result as an operation of law, that the new county of Fulton should be entitled to 'and possessed of all the benefits, rights, privileges, and immunities, and be subject to the … Chancellor Sanford said that, by the division, two new corporations were established in the place of one ; and each of the new political bodies had a capacity to hold land within its own limits.

Wasmuth v. Allen

43 Misc. 2d 14 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 27, 1964

2 and 7 years’ experience must take similar examinations; that chiropractors who have practiced between 7 and 15 years must take an examination in fundamentals of anatomy and physiology, prepared by persons who are not qualified … The exercise of legislative discretion exhibited in this case in adopting a different attack, upon an evil clearly proved to exist, is not subject to judicial re-examination. (Williams v. Mayor, 289 U. S. 36, 42 .)

HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Cayo

34 Misc. 3d 850 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 12, 2011

Many mortgage lenders have expressed their intention to postpone foreclosure sales on all mortgages that may qualify for the modification in order to allow sufficient time to evaluate the borrower’s eligibility.” … Clearly, it would be inequitable to allow the plaintiff to simultaneously delay the action and to rely upon it as evidence of prejudice.

Barnett v. Fields

196 Misc. 339 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 6, 1949

Being in the noncompetitive class, there does not appear to be any reason why the examination to establish fitness therefor should be competitive. … A legislative classification of a position in the noncompetitive class will not be overruled in the absence of proof that same was clearly arbitrary and unreasonable (Matter of Felder v. Fullen, 27 N. Y.

Kazel v. Kazel

192 Misc. 2d 459 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 25, 2002

The plan administrator bears the responsibility to determine whether or not a domestic relations order qualifies as a QDRO. … As stated above, generally, the only way to establish a former spouse’s right to survivor benefits is through a QDRO.

Town of Harrison v. County of Westchester

34 Misc. 2d 1020 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 6, 1962

Clearly, Hangar “ E ” is not held for public use within the meaning of the statute and is not therefore entitled to an exemption. … Property used primarily to obtain revenue or profit is not held for a public use and is not ordinarily immune from taxation, but property held by a State agency primarily for a public *1037 use does not lose immunity because

People ex rel. Wooster v. Maher

19 N.Y.S. 758 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 2, 1892

Maher as mayor of the city of Albany had expired by its own limitation, and his successor had been chosen and qualified, but had not by any order of court been substituted as defendant in this action. … Clearly, a peremptory mandamus could not compel Edward A.

People v. Breidenbach

90 Misc. 2d 213 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 3, 1977

The Beck case (supra, p 209) dealing with this very subject matter held: "The defendants are not immune from a border search because they were employees at the pier and not persons entering the country. … Clearly, the facts in the case at bar do not disclose that the customs officers had any reasonable suspicion that the trunk of the automobile contained any dutiable merchandise.

Fragoso v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

23 Misc. 3d 430 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 14, 2009

“The MVAIC scheme sets up mutually exclusive categories of ‘qualified persons’ and ‘insureds’. … Indeed, as a matter of public policy, it has been observed that “the legislative purpose in establishing the MVAIC was to afford the injured person the same protection he would have if the tort-feasor were covered by insurance

Potsdam Electric Light & Power Co. v. Village of Potsdam

49 Misc. 18 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1905

Clearly then only the latter part of the sentence, where it provides that “ in any case ” the court “ may ” *20 require sureties, applies to a single plaintiff. … If the offers had been complete, the “ acceptance ” was no acceptance, because qualified and containing new terms not contained in the offers.

New York City Coalition for the Preservation of Gardens v. Giuliani

175 Misc. 2d 644 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1997

Clearly, without a license to property or with only a license revocable at will, one lacks a legally cognizable interest upon which to base standing to complain of decisions affecting the use of that property (see, Matter … Clearly, this section pertains to construction on the very site where once there existed another building of the same or similar character to the one proposed for construction.

Barile v. Fisher

197 Misc. 493 · New York Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1949

If this is found to be the case upon the trial, and it is found that the defendant acted out of 11 disinterested malevolence ”, the defendant would be clearly liable for the damage caused to the plaintiff. (Beardsley v. … It hardly needs argument to establish that revenge is not a legitimate labor objective (Dorchy v. Kansas, 272 U. S. 306 ; Bakery Drivers Union v. Wagshall, 333 U. S. 437 ). See Hunt v. Crumboch ( 325 U.

McDonald v. New York City Campaign Finance Board

40 Misc. 3d 826 · New York Supreme Court · May 1, 2013

Consistent with this goal, plaintiff notes that the City Charter, when establishing the CFB, specifically limited its authority and responsibilities to “any voluntary system of campaign finance reform established by local … The Constitution also mandates that the “[r]ights, powers, privileges and immunities granted to local governments by this article shall be liberally construed” (id. § 3 [c]).

North River Steam Boat Co. v. Livingston

3 Cow. 713 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1824

Where there is a particular recital, or enumeration of particulars, to which the instrument is to app'ly, subsequent general words shall be qualified by the particular recital. … But even if the conclusions which I have drawn from established premises, be not admitted as absolutely correct and conclusive, is there no doubt on the subject ?

Mattoon v. Young

5 Thomp. & Cook 109 · New York Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1874

But is it clearly proved that Willard understood, fully comprehended, the terms and legal effect of the instrument? … If so, then the estoppel was established, and it may be insisted on against the heirs at law of John. Mattoon v. Young, 45 N. Y. 702 ; Wood v. Seeley, 32 id. 116.

People ex rel. Second Avenue Railroad v. Coleman

21 N.Y. St. Rep. 178 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 28, 1889

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or propeity, without due process of law; nor … For these counties a separate court of appeals was established, called the St.

Giventer v. Rementeria

181 Misc. 2d 582 · New York Supreme Court · May 30, 1999

, as an expert for the purpose of establishing the generally accepted medical practice in the community. … It is a rare case where the medical witness can successfully argue that standards of practice in a related specialty are either wholly unknown to him, totally irrelevant to his own care and treatment of a patient, or clearly

Colbee 52nd Street Corp. v. Madison 52nd Corp.

8 Misc. 2d 175 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 1, 1957

S. with respect to the provisions of plaintiff’s lease was not established upon the trial. Nothing in its own lease made it incumbent upon C. B. … The evidence adduced upon the trial established no cause of action against Schraffts.

People v. Van Zandt

43 Misc. 3d 563 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 13, 2014

Whether or not the shares qualified as “stocks” protected by the Martin Act, the grand jury minutes sufficiently establish that they are nonetheless “securities” within the meaning of the act. … Finally, even if they are not the kind of “stock” that qualifies them per se as “securities,” the R.S.