Case law

Brown v. Collora

278 A.D.2d 266 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 11, 2000

leave to amend his answer to assert the affirmative defense of the Workers’ Compensation Law, as the defense appears to be meritorious and the plaintiff failed to establish prejudice or surprise (see, CPLR 3025 [b]; Murray v … Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Supreme Court did not conclude that the plaintiff Michael Brown and the defendant third-party plaintiff were “in the same employ” within the meaning of Workers’ Compensation Law

Brown v. State

36 A.D.2d 1015 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 20, 1971

People v. Brown

216 A.D.2d 3 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 1, 1995

The report of an unidentified citizen informant of a described person selling drugs at a particular location was sufficient to give the police a right to inquire (see, People v Kadan, 195 AD2d 174, 178 , lv denied 83 NY2d … ’s statement in the police vehicle was spontaneous and not preceded by any police questioning (see, People v Huffman, 61 NY2d 795 ).

People v. Brown

201 A.D.2d 438 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 24, 1994

The charge as a whole conveyed the appropriate legal principles (People v Coleman, 70 NY2d 817, 819 ). … Wesley, 76 NY2d 555 ), and fairly comported with the requirements of Penal Law § 35.15 (see, People v Madden, 171 AD2d 558, 559 , lv denied 78 NY2d 969 ).

People v. Brown

254 A.D.2d 57 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 6, 1998

The court properly refused to instruct the jury specifically as to the victim’s lack of candor about an unrelated arrest, since the court’s standard falsus in uno charge sufficiently covered this issue (see, People v Saunders

Brown v. Harrington

150 Misc. 2d 375 · Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · Jun 12, 1990

The attorney for the Harringtons asserts that Brown’s claims are barred by the “fireman’s rule” applicable to police officers injured in the line of duty under Santangelo v State of New York ( 71 NY2d 393 ). … It cannot be said that the officer assumed the risk created by that negligence (Dawes v Ballard, 133 AD2d 662 ; Starkey v Trancamp Contr. Corp., 152 AD2d 358 ; Tanico v Carr, NYLJ, July 13, 1989, at 20, col 5).

Brown v. English

137 A.D. 900 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 15, 1910

Schrank v. Brown

194 Misc. 138 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 28, 1949

Brown, 192 Misc. 603 ). … Brown, 203 N. Y. 136, 143 ; Matter of Newton v. Lewis, 118 Misc. 382, 389 ).

People v. Brown

290 A.D.2d 251 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 8, 2002

The court’s curative instruction was sufficient to prevent prejudice (see, People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865). … Mattiace, 77 NY2d 269, 275-276 ; People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292 ).

Brown v. Tracy

9 How. Pr. 93 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 15, 1854

Brown v. Wakeman

16 N.Y.S. 846 · City of New York Municipal Court · Dec 29, 1891

People v. Brown

152 A.D.2d 950 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 12, 1989

The evidence at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to defendant, does not support his proffered defense of justification (see, People v Goetz, 68 NY2d 96 ; People v Watts, 57 NY2d 299 ).

People v. Brown

121 A.D.2d 732 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 30, 1986

The issue, therefore, is not preserved for review (see, People v Whalen, 59 NY2d 273, 279-280 ; People v Lipton, 54 NY2d 340, 351 ; People v Wright, 115 AD2d 677 ; People v La Bombard, 99 AD2d 851 ).

People v. Brown

25 A.D.3d 384 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 10, 2006

The panelist’s response was not rendered equivocal by the court’s use of the word “think” in its inquiry (see People v Chambers, 97 NY2d 417, 419 [2002]). … The court’s Sandoval ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion (see People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203 [2002]; People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 458-459 [1994]; People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292

People v. Brown

199 A.D.2d 327 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 13, 1993

Under these circumstances, the motion of the defendant’s assigned counsel to be relieved as counsel is granted and new appellate counsel is assigned (see, People v Davis, 73 NY2d 864 ; People v Casiano, 67 NY2d 906 ; People … v Pritchett, 149 AD2d 741 ).

Brown v. Divine

254 A.D. 671 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 29, 1938

People v. Brown

208 A.D.2d 941 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 31, 1994

Accordingly, it was improper for the court to impose an increased sentence when the defendant failed to successfully complete the program, without affording her an opportunity to withdraw her plea (see, People v Rodney E. … , 77 NY2d 672 ; People v Johnson, 197 AD2d 638 ; People v Spina, 186 AD2d 9 ).

Taylor v. Brown

195 Misc. 840 · City of New York Municipal Court · Jul 29, 1949

(Byrnes v. Rayner, 84 Hun 199 ; Rosenfeld v. Peck, 149 App. Div. 663 ; Tiemeyer v. Turnquist, 85 N. Y. 516 ; Wickstrom v. Peck, 179 App. Div. 855 .) … (Wanamaker v. Weaver, 176 N.

People v. Brown

284 A.D.2d 156 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 12, 2001

The caller’s version of the events was corroborated in considerable detail (see, People v Vasquez, 88 NY2d 561, 575-577 ; People v Brown, 80 NY2d 729, 737 ), and the alleged discrepancies between the caller’s account and … Roberts, 448 US 56, 66 ; People v Kello, 96 NY2d 740, 743-744 ).

Bain v. Brown

11 N.Y. 285 · New York Court of Appeals · Apr 7, 1874

In the deeds which Brown sent to him for execution and which he executed and intrusted to Brown for delivery, the amount of consideration was left blank, but these blanks were afterward filled up by Brown with sumsamount … The principles governing this class of cases and the leading authorities bearing upon them are referred to in the opinion in the Supreme Court, and also in the late case of Dutton v. Willner ( 52 N. Y., 312 ).