Case law

People v. Rodney

2024 NY Slip Op 24304 · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Dec 2, 2024

and remain "rare in our jurisprudence; they have never been compelled by this Court as a matter of constitutional law, or even as a matter of federal procedure" ( Spencer v Texas , 385 US 554, 568 [1967]) — the decision clearly … Since Erlinger thus established a new rule, not subject to either of the Teague exceptions, [FN2] it may not be applied retroactively to cases on collateral review ( see People v Eastman , 85 NY2d 265, 275 [1995]; see also

Mikalauskas v. Gloss Griffin LLC

2024 NY Slip Op 34146(U) · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Nov 22, 2024

“On a motion for leave to amend a pleading, movant need not establish the merit of the proposed new allegations, but must simply show that the proffered amendment is not palpably insufficient or … clearly devoid of merit” (Cruz v Brown, 129 AD3d 455 [1st Dept 2015] citing Miller v Cohen, 93 AD3d 424 [1st Dept 2012]).

Banasik v. Mount Sinai Health Sys.

2025 NY Slip Op 31233(U) · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Apr 11, 2025

religious exemption to the vaccine mandate, submitting medical records documenting his history of severe allergies to vaccines as well as a note from his personal physician stating that he had “natural immunity … To state a claim for employment discrimination under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL,1 a plaintiff must allege that: (1) he is a member of a protected class, (2) he was qualified for his position, (3) he was

Myck v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth.

2024 NY Slip Op 33129(U) · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Sep 6, 2024

Nuco is entitled to rely on the underlying plaintiff's bill of particulars to make a prima facie showing that injuries that the plaintiff allegedly sustained do not qualify as “grave injur … Such a determination that does not establish either that Nuco agreed to procure, or actually procured, the insurance for which coverage was ultimately denied.

Bortugno v. Schindler El. Corp.

2025 NY Slip Op 30839(U) · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Mar 17, 2025

Tranfa-Abboud and the documentary evidence clearly establish that Plaintiff is highly likely to continue receiving these benefits. … Tranfa-Abboud—that establishes Plaintiff’s continued receipt of these benefits is highly probable. Dr.

People v. Rodney

2024 NY Slip Op 24304 · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Dec 2, 2024

and remain "rare in our jurisprudence; they have never been compelled by this Court as a matter of constitutional law, or even as a matter of federal procedure" ( Spencer v Texas , 385 US 554, 568 [1967]) — the decision clearly … Since Erlinger thus established a new rule, not subject to either of the Teague exceptions, [FN2] it may not be applied retroactively to cases on collateral review ( see People v Eastman , 85 NY2d 265, 275 [1995]; see also

Shibley v. City of New York

2026 NY Slip Op 50039(U) · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Jan 12, 2026

The City argues that Plaintiff also failed to identify any requirements for the positions at issue to plausibly allege that he was qualified for them ( id .). … However, although the task may be difficult, drawing such a line is not impossible, and it is clearly established: a racially motivated comment is one that is imbued with, indicates, or otherwise signals a particular view

Hecht v. 89th St. Owners Corp.

2024 NY Slip Op 33539(U) · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Oct 4, 2024

While documents reflecting out-of-court transactions such as contracts, mortgages, and deeds are considered prototypical examples of "documentary evidence" because their contents clearly meet the three … clearly communicate, at the very least, unease over plaintiffs service dog and the health condition that might require them to provide her with an accommodation.

Trager v. Bryant Park Endodontics

2024 NY Slip Op 33043(U) · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Aug 27, 2024

Gimbel clearly asserted that a proper examination would have revealed the existence of any pathology in tooth 29 prior to the tooth 30 root canal procedure on January 2, 2020, that a root canal procedure … He further clearly asserted that Bui failed to detect the fourth canal under tooth 30, and that his failure to detect, file, drain, and close it led to the failure of the root canal procedure, and

Arlus Owner LLC v. 829 Mad. Ave. LLC

2025 NY Slip Op 30368(U) · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Jan 28, 2025

Indeed, it is the plaintiffs’ burden at trial to establish that it suffered any damages, not the defendants’ burden. … A subpoena that demands “any” and “all” documents is overbroad since it may encompass some materials that are be privileged or “clearly irrelevant.”

Weiss v. 56th & Park (NY) Owner, LLC

2025 NY Slip Op 51651(U) · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Oct 17, 2025

The Report Qualifies as a Business Record Under CPLR § 4518 The court concludes that the Report meets the statutory requirements of CPLR § 4518. … The Report was made the day after the accident—clearly "at or near the time" of the event within the meaning of CPLR § 4518(a).

Carrington v. City of N.Y. Human Resources Admin.

2024 NY Slip Op 51635(U) · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Dec 4, 2024

Here, Defendant's disciplinary proceedings against Plaintiff clearly commenced prior to her February 2023 SDHR filing. … As established in Melman v. Montefiore Med.

Carrington v. City of N.Y. Human Resources Admin.

2024 NY Slip Op 51635(U) · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Dec 4, 2024

Here, Defendant's disciplinary proceedings against Plaintiff clearly commenced prior to her February 2023 SDHR filing. … As established in Melman v. Montefiore Med.

Smith v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co.

2025 NY Slip Op 25243 · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Nov 12, 2025

Smith immune from challenge; it simply removes an unfair and only marginally probative line of attack. The Appellate Division, First Department's decision in People v. … It bears emphasis that no party has an absolute right to impeach with every prior conviction; the right is a qualified one, tempered by the demands of justice. Here, justice demands that Mr.

Martin v. New York State Unified Ct. Sys.

2024 NY Slip Op 30472(U) · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Feb 13, 2024

“The state civil service department and municipal commissions may refuse to examine an applicant, or after examination to certify an eligible (a) who is found to lack any of the established … The exercise of that discretion is to be sustained unless it has been clearly abused,” (Metzger v.

Winfrey v. City of New York

2025 NY Slip Op 31821(U) · New York Supreme Court, New York County · May 20, 2025

They reiterate that the sole reason for dismissal— Plaintiff’s on-duty alcohol consumption—was thoroughly adjudicated through OATH and upheld by the Commissioner, a determination immune from collateral … Under CPLR § 3211(a)(1), dismissal is warranted where documentary evidence “conclusively establishes a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law” (Goshen v. Mutual Life Ins.

Themed Rests., Inc. v. Zagat Survey, LLC

2004 NY Slip Op 24299 · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Aug 19, 2004

as to quoted opinions, the use of quotations is an accepted approach to conveying the remarks of others ( Orr v Lynch , 60 AD2d 949, 950 [3d Dept 1978], affd on mem below 45 NY2d 903 [1978] ["The defendants herein were clearly … motive]; see also Red Cap Valet v Hotel Nikko [USA] , 273 AD2d 289, 290 [2d Dept 2000] ["plaintiff failed to allege any facts from which malice could be inferred" and conclusory allegations were insufficient to overcome qualified

Matter of Lizotte v. Johnson

2004 NY Slip Op 24161 · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Jan 8, 2004

services at a special rate made on behalf of children who suffer from pronounced physical conditions as a result of which a physician certifies that they require a high degree of physical care, or have been diagnosed by a qualified … (Decision at 6.) (4) Failure to develop the record Finally, the transcript clearly demonstrates that the hearing officer did virtually nothing to develop the record.

Young v. Bessemer Trust Co., N.A.

2025 NY Slip Op 30989(U) · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Mar 25, 2025

In order to satisfy this step and make out a prima facie case, plaintiff must establish that he was in a group protected by the statute, that he was qualified for the position in question, that he … As Young argues, Conenna clearly satisfies this standard as his direct manager.

Vall v. City of New York

2024 NY Slip Op 33164(U) · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Sep 10, 2024

These documents clearly delineate the boundaries of BPCA’s property and conclusively establish that the location of Plaintiff's accident is outside these boundaries. … As established in Goshen v. Mutual Life Ins.