Case law

Brown v. Rosenbaum

259 A.D. 304 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 19, 1940

(Broderick v. Aaron [Rice], 264 N. Y. 368 ; Broderick v. Adamson [Greif], 270 id. 260.) … (See Persky v. Bank of America National Association, 261 N. Y. 212 .) The judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Present — Martin, P.

Frye v. Brown

189 A.D.2d 1031 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 21, 1993

It is well established that stipulations such as the one here which are not merged into the judgment of divorce stand as independent contracts (see, Brown v Brown, 166 AD2d 827, 828 ). … Undoubtedly, the ultimate goal in contract interpretation is realization and effectuation of the parties intent (see, e.g., Hudson-Port Ewen Assocs. v Chien Kuo, 165 AD2d 301, 303-304 , affd 78 NY2d 944 ).

Brown v. Regan

112 A.D.2d 570 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 11, 1985

We disagree (see, Matter of Krolowitz v Regan, 97 AD2d 902, 903 ; Matter of Field v Regan, 90 AD2d 580 , lv denied 58 NY2d 608 ). Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Main, J.

People v. Brown

122 A.D.3d 461 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 18, 2014

The sequence of events, including Brown’s aggressive request for money, and the overall course of conduct of Brown, Raye, and a third participant support the inference that all three participants acted in concert with regard … to each of the crimes charged (see People v Allah, 71 NY2d 830 [1988]; see also People v Smokes, 165 AD2d 696 [1st Dept 1990], lv denied 76 NY2d 991 [1990]).

People v. Brown

193 A.D.2d 611 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 3, 1993

Childress, 81 NY2d 263, 266 ; People v Bolling, 79 NY2d 317, 324 ; People v Jenkins, 75 NY2d 550, 555-556). … Kentucky, supra, at 96-97; People v Childress, supra, at 266 ).

People v. Brown

220 A.D.2d 250 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 10, 1995

voir dire and opening and final instructions, inter alia, to be "ministers of truth” and that their verdict should "speak the truth”, is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law for failure to object (People v … (Supra; People v Rawls, 187 AD2d 353 , Iv denied 81 NY2d 845 ; People v Pena, 196 AD2d 753 , Iv denied 82 NY2d 900 .) Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Kupferman, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

People v. Brown

2025 NY Slip Op 01228 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 5, 2025

People v Brown ( 2025 NY Slip Op 01228 ) People v Brown 2025 NY Slip Op 01228 Decided on March 5, 2025 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431 … No. 72709/21) [*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent, v Robert Brown, appellant. Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Chelsea Lopez of counsel; Taewoo Kim on the memorandum), for appellant.

Aylesworth v. Brown

10 Barb. 167 · New York Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1850

Rice, v. Ransom, ( 2 Hill, 54 , 57, 58,) the affidavit was made on the 6th of April, one month and nineteen days before the 25th of May when it was presented for redemption. … In The People v.

Brown v. . Sigourney

72 N.Y. 122 · New York Court of Appeals · Jan 15, 1878

(Pennie v. Life Ins. Co., 67 N. Y., 278 ;. Roosevelt v. Linkert, 67 N. Y., 447 .) … As is said in King v. Galvin ( 62 N.

Brown v. Zaino

226 A.D.2d 492 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 15, 1996

Hosp., 51 NY2d 242 ; George v Mt. Sinai Hosp., 47 NY2d 170 ; Snay v Cohoes Mem. Hosp., 110 AD2d 1021 ). … It *494 therefore appears that the issue is pending and undecided by the Supreme Court, such that we may not address the argument on this appeal (see, Daniels v Judelson, 215 AD2d 623 ; Katz v Katz, 68 AD2d 536, 542-543 )

Vernon v. Brown

40 A.D. 204 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 15, 1899

In Sperry v. Miller ( 16 N. Y. 407 ) it was held that a surrender of a lease did not extinguish the right of action for rent already accrued. And in McGregor v. Bd. of Ed’n of City of N. Y. ( 107 N.

Brown v. Brown

36 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 498 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1883

(See Robinson v. Raynor, 28 N. Y., 494 ; Lisk v. Sherman, 25 Barb., 433 ; Bunton v. Smith, 40 N. H., 352; Smith v. Crandall, 20 Md., 482 ; Foot v. Webb, 59 Barb., 38 ; Ackerman v. Ackerman, Exr., 24 N. J. … Eq., 315; Twiss v. George, 33 Mich., 253 .) In Purcell v.

Barclay v. Brown

7 Paige Ch. 245 · New York Court of Chancery · Aug 27, 1838

People v. Brown

122 A.D.3d 475 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 18, 2014

Brown v. Lavine

45 A.D.2d 753 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 24, 1974

People v. Brown

272 A.D.2d 338 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 1, 2000

v Mapp, 245 AD2d 307 ; People v Persaud, 237 AD2d 538 ). … People v Stith, 215 AD2d 789 ; People v Cox, 161 AD2d 724, 725 ; People v Jakes, 181 AD2d 913 ).

Dauchy v. Brown

41 Barb. 555 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 7, 1863

The only point decided in Watson v. Davis, ( 19 Wend. 371 ,) is that a judgment rendered by a justice after the four days given by statute for that purpose is erroneous ; and in Bissell v. … Sibley v.

People v. Brown

84 Misc. 2d 267 · New York County Courts · Nov 20, 1975

Ketter, 76 Misc 2d 698 ; People v Gaissert, 75 Misc 2d 478 ). … (People v Gottlieb, 36 NY2d 629 .)

Burke v. Brown

180 Misc. 903 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 30, 1943

Reis Co. v. Post, 183 App. Div. 696 ). … (Chartered Bank of India v. Nassau Fire Ins. Co., 145 App. Div. 307 ; Losie v. Royal Ind. Co., 179 App. Div. 439 ; De Cordova v. Sanville, 171 App. Div. 422 .) Settle order.

Guidet v. Brown

54 How. Pr. 409 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1877

Brown, deceased. The parties were married in 1828. In 1855 an agreement was entered into between John L.-Brown, of the first part, Mary Ann Bro.wn, of the second part, and George Johnson, of the third part. … The conclusion reached is that there should be judgment for partition of the lands, but that Mary Ann Brown is endowed of the lands in question.