Case law

Juhel v. Church

2 Johns. Cas. 333 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1801

(b) It seems to have been conceded, that Buchanan v. Ocean Ins. Co. (6 Cowen, 318,) Clendenning et at v. … Wager policies are held void in Massachusetts ; (Amory v. Gillman, 2 Mass. 1 ; Babcock v. Thompson, 3 Pickering, 446 ;) in Pennsylvania; (Pritchett v. Ins. Co. of N. A. 3 Yeates, 464; Craig v.

Connor v. Cuomo

161 Misc. 2d 889 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 22, 1994

Co. v Facilities Dev. Corp., 100 AD2d 787, 788 ). … Respondents also rely upon Matter of Waybro Corp. v Board of Estimate ( 67 NY2d 349 ) and East Thirteenth St. Community Assn. v New York State Urban Dev.

Southbridge Finishing Co. v. Golding

208 Misc. 846 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1955

Y. 651 ; People v. Rosenheimer, 209 N. Y. 115, 123 ; People v. Trybus, 219 N. Y. 18, 24 ; People v. Russo [Bar letto], 251 App. Div. 176 ; People v. Shapiro, 308 N. Y. 453 ; Brown v. Walker, 161 U. … In Brown v. Walker ( 161 U.

Dow v. Lomenzo

52 Misc. 2d 153 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1966

The court has the power to direct the board or officer to receive the certificate of acceptance as corrected. (Matter of Battista v. Carver, 29 Misc 2d 711 , affd. 14 A D 2d 746, affd. 10 N Y 2d 867.) … (Matter of Lauer v. Board of Elections, 262 N. Y. 416 .) In a Third Department case, the court held that even a three-day late filing was acceptable. (Matter of Smith v.

Holland v. Presley

168 Misc. 447 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 29, 1938

On appeal, the Appellate Division (Richards v. Presley, 243 App. … (Pollitz v. Wabash R. R. Co., 207 N. Y. 113 .) If, as a by-product of the fraud practiced on Mrs.

Avery & Lathrop v. Slack

19 Wend. 50 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1837

Hornsey v. Dimocke, 1 Vent. 119. Comyn’s Dig. pl. 2, D. 1. The distinction is fully illustrated by the case of an executor. He alw'avs sues in his own name. … The Overseers of the Poor of the town of Milan v.

Clinton v. Porter

2 Cai. Cas. 176 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 15, 1804

Ehle v. Purdy, 6 Wend. 629 . After twelve days demand of oyer by the plaintiff of a release pleaded by the defendant, he may treat the plea as a nullity and onter the defendant’s default. Field v. Goodman, 4 Wend. 214 . … Henry v. Brown, 19 J. R. 49. The defendant has the same time to plead after delivery as at the time of demand. Mu'holand v. Van Tine, 8 Cow. 132 ; see Varick v. Bodine, 3 Hill, 444 .

Beazer v. Bluttal

186 Misc. 234 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 2, 1946

disposition as the circumstances call for (Matter of Wallach’s, Inc,, v. … To maintain an employee in his position while such a proceeding was pending would be to prejudge'the matter before the board (Domanick v. Triboro Coach Corp., 259 App. Div. 657 ).

Sallah v. Sallah

28 Misc. 2d 130 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 6, 1960

That the plaintiff has a right of examination is established by a long line of authority (Harding v. Harding, 236 N. Y. 514 , affd. 203 App. Div. 721 ; Brown v. Brown, 239 N. Y. 518 , affd. 209 App. … Div. 835 ; Rosenthal v. Rosenthal, 230 App. Div. 483 ; Sholes v.

Reilly v. Mayor of New York

10 N.Y.S. 847 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 6, 1890

We are unable to see any distinction between the case at bar and the case of Dolan v. Mayor, 6 Hun, 506 . … The attempt to show that the resolution of the board of supervisors, adopted 20th December, 1864, did not create the office of subpoena server to the district attorney, in no manner distinguishes the case at bar from the

Continental Insurance v. Equitable Trust Co.

127 Misc. 45 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1926

(Hammond v. Pennock, 61 N. Y. 145 ; Roberts v. Fisher, 43 id. 159 ; Williston Sales, § 608.) As is stated by Judge Story in Doggett v. Emerson (7 Fed. Cas. … As is stated in Butler v. Prentiss ( 158 N.

State Commission for Human Rights v. Harvey Properties, Inc.

50 Misc. 2d 672 · New York Supreme Court · May 6, 1966

(See People v. Williams, 38 Misc 2d 80 , and cases cited therein.) … (See Voorhees & Hobart v. Hobart, 251 App. Div. 111 ; Gerken v. Hall, 65 App. Div. 16 ; Gilbert v. Burnside, 6 A D 2d 834.)

Spoolan Realty Corp. v. Haebler

147 Misc. 9 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 14, 1931

(Leach v. Fobes, 11 Gray [Mass.], 506; 71 Am. Dec. 732 ; Brown v. Smith, [C. C.] 109 Fed. 26, 29 ; Johnson v. Brooks, 93 N. Y. 337, 343 ; St. Regis Paper Co. v. Santa Clara Lumber Co., 173 id. 149; 2 Story Eq. … (Bostwick v. Hall, 191 App. Div. 610 ; Trimboli v. Kinkel, 226 N. Y. 147 ; Matter of Newman, [L. R.] 9 Ch. App. 681.) 4. Specific performance will lie as against the defendant Gnilbe Corporation.

Rubin v. Conway

190 Misc. 295 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 20, 1947

Supp. 460 ; Brown v. Cain, 56 F. Supp. 56 ). In Mitchell v. … And again in Brown v.

In re Election of Alderman

49 N.Y.S. 241 · New York Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1897

People v. Board of Canvassers of Chemung Co., 126 N. Y. 392 , 27 N. E. 792 . … See People v. Board of Canvassers of Chemung Co., supra. But it does not clearly appear that a clerical error has been made.

State v. New York Movers Tariff Bureau, Inc.

48 Misc. 2d 225 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 14, 1965

more informed and precise determination by the Court of the scope and meaning of the statute as applied to those particular circumstances. * * # ’ Federal Maritime Board v. … jurisdiction is in the Board and not in the district court.”

Wormer v. Canovan

7 Lans. 36 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1872

(Shank v. Shoemaker, 18 N. Y., 489 ; Brown v. Comstock, 10 Barb., 67 ; Sweet v. Bartlett, 4 Sandf. 641 .) … (Power v. Kent, 1 Cow., 172 ; Talcott v. Bronson, 4 Paige, 501 .)

In re the Incorporated Village of Hewlett Bay Park

48 Misc. 2d 833 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 12, 1966

As was said in Cuglar v. Power Auth. of N. Y. … (De Sena v. Gulde, 24 A D 2d 165.)

Middletown Bank v. Morris

28 Barb. 616 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 14, 1858

By the Court, Brown, J. … The court refer to the cases of Robinson v. Ames, (20 Jolm 146 ;) Gowan v. Jackson, (Id. 176;) Aymar v. Beers, (7 Cowen, 705.) [Kings General Term, December 14, 1858. S. B. Strong, Emott and Brown, Justices.]

Winebrenner v. De Witt

207 Misc. 800 · New York Supreme Court · May 12, 1955

Div. 893 ), has no application to the case at bar. *804 On the contrary, it is the opinion of this court that this case is governed by the decision in the case of Matter of Erikson v. Cohen ( 243 App. Div. 1 -4). … Again the court points out in the Erikson case at page 3, that where a statute requires a signer to acknowledge his signature “ an acknowledgment is not satisfied by that of a subscribing witness ”, citing Cook v.