Case law

Hellwig v. Blumenberg

5 Silv. Sup. 290 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 9, 1889

The meaning is to be collected ex antee,edentihus et, eonsequentibus, and a later provision may be qualified by a prior one, or the contrary. Id. … Statutes, conferring special privileges or immunities upon classes, are to be strictly construed. Perkins v. Smith, ante.

People v. Wright

104 Misc. 2d 911 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1980

(See Strachan, Self-Incrimination, Immunity and Watergate, 56 Tex L Rev, 791, 829. [A different situation arises, however, when the Fifth Amendment violation involves immunized testimony. … The additional evidence clearly shows that the defendant is a dangerous person who cannot be trusted to function normally in society.

People v. Quinones

11 Misc. 3d 582 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 16, 2005

Furthermore, the use of the permissive word “may” in the first sentence of subparagraph (iv) is inconsistent with the establishment of an eligibility requirement. … Subparagraph (v) establishes the effective dates of the law, and is not relevant to this discussion. .

People v. Sigismondi

49 Misc. 2d 1 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1966

Accordingly, the proof required to establish the possession “with intent to use ” and the assault with a dangerous weapon is identical. … desire to rape her, may be convicted of attempted rape or of an assault with intent to commit the crime of rape, bnt one who is completely ruthless and proceeds ‘ ‘ to finish the job ’ ’ by actually raping his victim is immune

People v. Phillips

14 Misc. 2d 565 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 9, 1958

In order that witnesses may be free to testify willingly, the law has traditionally afforded them the protection of certain privileges, such as, for example, immunity from suits for libel springing from their testimony. … Ezaugi (2 N Y 2d 439, 442) clearly demonstrates the deficiency in the evidence upon which the Grand Jury predicated the indictment under attack.

Logan-Baldwin v. L.S.M. General Contractors, Inc.

31 Misc. 3d 174 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 5, 2011

Plaintiffs allege that a condition of the contract was to engage similarly qualified subcontractors due to the historic nature of the property. (Id. II15.) … The evidence before the court establishes a lack of privity between plaintiffs and the Isaacs defendants. The October 16, 2000 contract on its face is made between plaintiffs and LSM.

Fonseca v. Judges of the Family Court

59 Misc. 2d 492 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 11, 1969

The distinction between an “ adjournment ” and a “ mistrial ” is so fundamental, so well understood, and so well established as to require no extended discussion or even definition. … The landmark case of Matter of Gault (supra) clearly points the way to a determination of the question.

Foland v. Johnson

16 Abb. Pr. 235 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1862

The general denial is not, however, absolute and complete, but denies every allegation in the complaint, except as in the answer afterwards qualified or admitted. … contained in the second and third branches or divisions of the answer; and, therefore, whether the demur *238 rer, being to the whole answer, must not fail for being too comprehensive, and for embracing a defence which is clearly

City of New York v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.

136 Misc. 569 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1930

The Public Service Commissions Law * * * and the Railroad Law * * * deal with maximum rates of fare established by statute, but make no reference in terms to rates established by agreement with local authorities. * * * As … That it failed to do so in the case of the Rapid Transit Act indicates that the Legislature intended that the contractual rates of fare authorized by that act should be immune from regulation by the Commission.

State Commission for Human Rights v. Callan

57 Misc. 2d 504 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 9, 1968

investigation report of the Commission indicates, that when interviewed, respondents claimed: (1) that they refused to furnish complainant with an application because she is not presently residing with her husband and does not qualify … Clearly, petitioner has failed to meet the burden of establishing a clear legal right to the drastic remedy of injunctive relief (Town of Southeast v.

People v. Nieves

27 Misc. 3d 585 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 2, 2010

In the court’s view, that intent seems clearly to preclude defendant’s eligibility for resentencing here. … The State urged that, under the Buss rule, the sentence for defendant’s initial sex crime (which qualified him for civil management) and the sentence for the subsequent nonsexual offense (which would not qualify him for civil

Manhattan Plaza Associates, L.P. v. Department of Housing Preservation & Development

3 Misc. 3d 717 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 20, 2004

In her decision, ALJ Levy explained that pursuant to HPD rules and regulations, in order to qualify for succession rights in the subject apartment, an occupant must either be approved from a waiting list, or must qualify … ALJ Levy based her decision on Michael Madden’s unrebutted testimony and the “substantial documentation” establishing the subject apartment as his residence.

Baptist Home v. Gardner

145 N.Y.S. 275 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 6, 1914

This last qualifying sentence imports clearly her intention to be those whom he was satisfied came within the descriptive limitation theretofore expressed, viz., “were worthy, needy and deserving of” aid. … E. 455 , and establishes it as one for public uses within the meaning of section 12 of the Personal Property Law.

Coane v. American Distilling Co.

182 Misc. 926 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 14, 1944

We do this not only because a long and uniform line of decisions by our own courts ought to have weight, but because the rule established by these decisions seems to be the sounder one.” … It is an accepted canon of statutory construction, that as statutes general in terms and affecting matters of procedure, to have intended that they should not apply to pending actions unless the contrary clearly appears;

In re the City of New York

51 Misc. 2d 1008 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 27, 1966

Considering, first, the water tower, generally attached to a base affixed to the roof, it seems clearly to fall within the boundaries of the middle category. … Certain Props., etc. ( 344 F. 2d 142 , supra), the court was applying New York law, while indicating clearly that it would independently have arrived at the same conclusion.

Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Delaware and Hudson Canal Co.

29 Barb. 589 · New York Supreme Court · May 2, 1859

They do not, in other words, contain any immunities to the company, shielding them from the effect of the ordinary meaning of the language, or the ordinary consequences of the want of circumspection apd care in *593 the preparation … Nothing more clearly demonstrates the wisdom of adhering to this rule, than the consequences which a departure from it would exhibit in this case.

City of New York v. Andrews

186 Misc. 2d 533 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 16, 2000

The accuracy of this legislative finding is all too clearly borne out by the proof before me. … These orders have been based on a statute which clearly states the grounds upon which relief may be granted, and which clearly spells out the nature of the closing orders, injunctions, and fines which it permits.

People v. Taylor

191 Misc. 2d 672 · New York Supreme Court · May 22, 2002

Monitoring Clearly, a lack of monitoring, standing alone, does not establish a systematic exclusion of any group. … Of these, some 50% or 7,500 are returned and 20% of those — some 1,500 — are found qualified and enter the qualified pool.

Bennett v. McMorran

38 Misc. 2d 928 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 1, 1963

the opinion of the witness, based upon articles, books and treatises read by him, including a Government publication entitled 1 ‘ Legal Aspect of Controlling Highway Access ” authored by one whom the witness regarded as a qualified … 'Similarly, references to the proposed improvements by employees of the department as creating ‘ ‘ a controlled access highway” cannot affect the legal definition which has been established by statute.

Mark v. Lang

52 Misc. 2d 469 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 5, 1967

Petitioners’ expert witness’ testimony conclusively established the propriety and necessity of excluding respondents’ key answers A3 and B6 inasmuch as it was clearly demonstrated that it would be impossible to create the … However, petitioners’ expert witnesses and their cited documentary authority for this answer clearly establish that the 11 machinery ’ ’ contemplated in this response is not the existing formal procedures of the Police Department