bedrock principle in New York

2025The doctrine " 'is the preferred course because it promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process' " ( People v Taylor , 9 NY3d 129, 148 [2007], quoting Payne v Tennessee , 501 US 808, 827 [1991]).

2025The doctrine " 'is the preferred course because it promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development{**44 NY3d at 67} of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process' " ( People v Taylor , 9 NY3d 129, 148 [2007], quoting Payne v Tennessee , 501 US 808, 827 [1991]).

2025As we long have recognized, this bedrock principle " 'holds that common-law decisions should stand as precedents for guidance in cases arising in the future' and that a rule of law 'once decided by a court, will generally be followed in subsequent cases presenting the same legal problem' " ( People v Peque , 22 NY3d 168, 194 [2013], quoting People v Damiano , 87 NY2d 477, 488 [1996, Simons, J., concurring]).

2025As we long have recognized, this bedrock principle " 'holds that common-law decisions should stand as precedents for guidance in cases arising in the future' and that a rule of law 'once decided by a court, will generally be followed in subsequent cases presenting the same legal problem' " ( People v Peque , 22 NY3d 168, 194 [2013], quoting People v Damiano , 87 NY2d 477, 488 [1996, Simons, J., concurring]).

2025As we long have recognized, this bedrock principle " 'holds that common-law decisions should stand as precedents for guidance in cases arising in the future' and that a rule of law 'once decided by a court, will generally be followed in subsequent cases presenting the same legal problem' " ( People v Peque , 22 NY3d 168, 194 [2013], quoting People v Damiano , 87 NY2d 477, 488 [1996, Simons, J., concurring]).

2025As we long have recognized, this bedrock principle " 'holds that common-law decisions should stand as precedents for guidance in cases arising in the future' and that a rule of law 'once decided by a court, will generally be followed in subsequent cases presenting the same legal problem' " ( People v Peque , 22 NY3d 168, 194 [2013], quoting People v Damiano , 87 NY2d 477, 488 [1996, Simons, J., concurring]).

2025The doctrine " 'is the preferred course because it promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process' " ( People v Taylor , 9 NY3d 129, 148 [2007], quoting Payne v Tennessee , 501 US 808, 827 [1991]).

2025The doctrine " 'is the preferred course because it promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development{**44 NY3d at 67} of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process' " ( People v Taylor , 9 NY3d 129, 148 [2007], quoting Payne v Tennessee , 501 US 808, 827 [1991]).

2022“Indeed, it is a bedrock rule of statutory construction that, ‘where the same word or phrase is used in different parts of a statute[,] it will be presumed to be used in the same sense throughout,’ absent any indication of a contrary intent” (id., quoting Catlin v Sobol, 77 NY2d 552, 559 [1991]; see McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 236).

2019Indeed, it is a bedrock rule of statutory construction that, “where the -8- -9- No. 1 same word or phrase is used in different parts of a statute[,] it will be presumed to be used in the same sense throughout,” absent any indication of a contrary intent (Catlin v Sobol, 77 NY2d 552, 559 [1991]; see McKinney's Cons.

2016This runs counter to the bedrock principle of contract interpretation that "a written agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms" ( Greenfield v Philles Records , 98 NY2d 562, 569 [2002]).

2016This runs counter to the bedrock principle of contract interpretation that "a written agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms" ( Greenfield v Philles Records , 98 NY2d 562, 569 [2002]).

2013Bedrock established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by providing, inter alia, the subject note and mortgage, and proof of the Kings Hotel defendants’ default, thereby shifting the burden to the Kings Hotel defendants to raise a triable issue of fact (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Cohen, 80 AD3d 753, 755 [2011]; Zanfini v Chandler, 79 AD3d 1031, 1031-1032 [2010]; Aames Funding Corp. v Houston, 44 AD 3d 692, 693 [2007]; HSBC Bank USA v Merrill, 37 AD3d 899, 900 [2007]; Household Fin.

2013Bedrock established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by providing, inter alia, the subject note and mortgage, and proof of the Kings Hotel defendants’ default, thereby shifting the burden to the Kings Hotel defendants to raise a triable issue of fact (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Cohen, 80 AD3d 753, 755 [2011]; Zanfini v Chandler, 79 AD3d 1031, 1031-1032 [2010]; Aames Funding Corp. v Houston, 44 AD 3d 692, 693 [2007]; HSBC Bank USA v Merrill, 37 AD3d 899, 900 [2007]; Household Fin.

2013Bedrock established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by providing, inter alia, the subject note and mortgage, and proof of the Kings Hotel defendants’ default, thereby shifting the burden to the Kings Hotel defendants to raise a triable issue of fact (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Cohen, 80 AD3d 753, 755 [2011]; Zanfini v Chandler, 79 AD3d 1031, 1031-1032 [2010]; Aames Funding Corp. v Houston, 44 AD 3d 692, 693 [2007]; HSBC Bank USA v Merrill, 37 AD3d 899, 900 [2007]; Household Fin.

2013Bedrock established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by providing, inter alia, the subject note and mortgage, and proof of the Kings Hotel defendants’ default, thereby shifting the burden to the Kings Hotel defendants to raise a triable issue of fact (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Cohen, 80 AD3d 753, 755 [2011]; Zanfini v Chandler, 79 AD3d 1031, 1031-1032 [2010]; Aames Funding Corp. v Houston, 44 AD 3d 692, 693 [2007]; HSBC Bank USA v Merrill, 37 AD3d 899, 900 [2007]; Household Fin.

2013Bedrock established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by providing, inter alia, the subject note and mortgage, and proof of the Kings Hotel defendants’ default, thereby shifting the burden to the Kings Hotel defendants to raise a triable issue of fact (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Cohen, 80 AD3d 753, 755 [2011]; Zanfini v Chandler, 79 AD3d 1031, 1031-1032 [2010]; Aames Funding Corp. v Houston, 44 AD 3d 692, 693 [2007]; HSBC Bank USA v Merrill, 37 AD3d 899, 900 [2007]; Household Fin.

2013Bedrock established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by providing, inter alia, the subject note and mortgage, and proof of the Kings Hotel defendants’ default, thereby shifting the burden to the Kings Hotel defendants to raise a triable issue of fact (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Cohen, 80 AD3d 753, 755 [2011]; Zanfini v Chandler, 79 AD3d 1031, 1031-1032 [2010]; Aames Funding Corp. v Houston, 44 AD 3d 692, 693 [2007]; HSBC Bank USA v Merrill, 37 AD3d 899, 900 [2007]; Household Fin.

2013Bedrock established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by providing, inter alia, the subject note and mortgage, and proof of the Kings Hotel defendants’ default, thereby shifting the burden to the Kings Hotel defendants to raise a triable issue of fact (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Cohen, 80 AD3d 753, 755 [2011]; Zanfini v Chandler, 79 AD3d 1031, 1031-1032 [2010]; Aames Funding Corp. v Houston, 44 AD 3d 692, 693 [2007]; HSBC Bank USA v Merrill, 37 AD3d 899, 900 [2007]; Household Fin.

2013Bedrock established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by providing, inter alia, the subject note and mortgage, and proof of the Kings Hotel defendants’ default, thereby shifting the burden to the Kings Hotel defendants to raise a triable issue of fact (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Cohen, 80 AD3d 753, 755 [2011]; Zanfini v Chandler, 79 AD3d 1031, 1031-1032 [2010]; Aames Funding Corp. v Houston, 44 AD 3d 692, 693 [2007]; HSBC Bank USA v Merrill, 37 AD3d 899, 900 [2007]; Household Fin.

2006This concept is founded upon the bedrock principle of stare decisis (Mountain View Coach Lines v Storms, 102 AD2d 663 [2d Dept 1984]; People v Brisotti, 169 Misc 2d 672 [App Term, 1st Dept 1996]; People v McMurty, 141 Misc 2d 510 [Sup Ct, Monroe County 1987], affd 174 AD2d 988 [4th Dept 1991]; Josephson v Josephson, 121 Misc 2d 572 [Sup Ct, NY County 1983]), and “the fact that there is in New York State but one Appellate Division, albeit divided into four Departments.” (Reyes v Sanchez-Pena, 191 Misc 2d 600, 606 [Sup Ct, Bronx County 2002].) Consequently, in this action, this court is constrai

2004This concept is founded upon the bedrock principle of stare decisis (Mountain View Coach Lines v Storms, 102 AD2d 663 [2d Dept 1984]; People v Brisotti, 169 Misc 2d 672 [App Term, 1st Dept 1996]; People v McMurty, 141 Misc 2d 510 [1987], affd 174 AD2d 988 [4th Dept 1991]; Josephson v Josephson, 121 Misc 2d 572 [Sup Ct, NY County 1983]), and “the fact that there is in New York State but one Appellate Division, albeit divided into four Departments.” (Reyes v Sanchez-Pena, 191 Misc 2d 600, 606 [Sup Ct, Bronx County 2002].) Conclusion In sum, the jury’s minimal award for past pain and suffering an

2025The repercussions of the majority's approach are all the more alarming given that this Court's role in enforcing the balance of power among the branches of State government is vital—and unique. "[T]he federal separation of powers doctrine, unlike the federal analysis of individual rights incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides no binding 'floor' to the distribution of powers under the state constitution" (James A. Gardner, The Positivist Revolution that Wasn't: Constitutional Universalism in the States , 4 Roger Williams U L Rev 109, 116 [1998]; see Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Li

2025The repercussions of the majority's approach are all the more alarming given that this Court's role in enforcing the balance of power among the branches of State government is vital—and unique. "[T]he federal separation of powers doctrine, unlike the federal analysis of individual rights incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides no binding 'floor' to the distribution of powers under the state constitution" (James A. Gardner, The Positivist Revolution that Wasn't: Constitutional Universalism in the States , 4 Roger Williams U L Rev 109, 116 [1998]; see Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Li

2023As the Johnson Court itself noted, the former is “ ‘ ‘the most relaxed and tolerant form of judicial scrutiny’ ’ ” (36 NY3d at 202, quoting Myers v Schneiderman, 30 NY3d 1 , 15 [2017], quoting Dallas v Stanglin, 490 US 19, 26 [1989]).

2023Plants, Inc., 9 NY2d 595, 599 [1961]). -9- - 10 - No. 51 The majority next relies on its view of how an ideal RMBS agreement should be structured, pointing out that “[Section 2.06] is not where one would expect to find an enforcement mechanism for the repurchase protocol” because the section generally and by its title, addresses the execution and delivery of the certificates, not anything to do with repurchasing defective loans.

2021This conclusion flows from the bedrock principle first set forth in Williams , which is that "no objects, however worthy . . . which have no connection with park purposes, should be permitted to encroach upon [parkland] without legislative authority plainly conferred" ( Williams v Gallatin , 229 NY at 253 [emphasis added]).

2020Thomas v Bethlehem Steel Corp., 63 NY2d 150, 155 [1984]; Beary, 44 NY2d at 412-413).

2017As a consequence, we have adhered to the bedrock principle that the statute is to be construed liberally to achieve its purpose of protecting workers (id. at 521; Nicometi v Vineyards of Fredonia, LLC, 25 NY3d 90, 101 [2015]).

2017As a consequence, we have adhered to the bedrock principle that the statute is to be construed liberally to achieve its purpose of protecting workers (id. at 521; Nicometi v Vineyards of Fredonia, LLC, 25 NY3d 90, 101 [2015]).