Clause rule in New York

1985“It remains a basic principle of statutory construction that a court will ‘not by implication read into a clause of a rule or statute a limitation for which * * * no sound reason [can be found] and which would render the clause futile’ ” (Matter of Industrial Commr. of State of N. Y. v Five Corners Tavern, 47 NY2d 639, 646-647 ).

1981Moreover, “It remains a basic principle of statutory construction that a court will ‘not by implication read into a clause of a rule or statute a limitation for which *** no sound reason [can be found] and which would render the clause futile’ ” (Matter of Industrial Comr. of State of N. Y. v Five Corners Tavern, 47 NY2d 639, 646-647 , quoting Lederer v Wise Shoe Co., 276 NY 459, 465 ).

2000Instead, the Clause requires a standard of “substantial equality of treatment” for the citizens of the taxing State and nonresident taxpayers (Austin v New Hampshire, 420 US 656, 665 ).

2000Instead, the Clause requires a standard of "substantial equality of treatment" for the citizens of the taxing State and nonresident taxpayers ( Austin v New Hampshire, 420 US 656, 665 ).

2015Apart from the statute, this Court has not imposed a wilfulness requirement for civil contempt (McCain, 84 NY2d at 226 ; McCormick, 59 NY2d at 583 ).

2015Apart from the statute, this Court has not imposed a wilfulness requirement for civil contempt (McCain, 84 NY2d at 226 ; McCormick, 59 NY2d at 583 ).

2008Crawford and Davis v Washington ( 547 US 813 [2006]) establish that this clause does not bar the use of out-of-court statements by declarants who are not “witnesses”; and Crawford held that witnesses are “those who ‘bear testimony’ ” (Crawford, 541 US at 51 ).

2008Crawford and Davis v Washington ( 547 US 813 [2006]) establish that this clause does not bar the use of out-of-court statements by declarants who are not “witnesses”; and Crawford held that witnesses are “those who ‘bear testimony’ ” (Crawford, 541 US at 51 ).

2008“Historically the Speech or Debate Clause serves to preserve the integrity of the Legislature by preventing other branches of government from interfering with legislators in the performance of their duties.” (Id. at 54.) The Clause has as its fundamental purpose assuring that legislators can perform their legislative functions independently by shielding them from the consequences of being sued and the burden of having to defend themselves in court (Matter of Straniere v Silver, 218 AD2d 80, 83 [3d Dept 1996], affd for reasons stated below 89 NY2d 825 [1996]).

2000In addition to the “substantial equality” standard, the Court in Supreme Ct. v Piper (supra) identified a test to determine whether a State may sustain a tax that discriminates on the basis of State residence under the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

1985Group ( 88 AD2d 753 ), we found that a products hazard clause indistinguishable from the clause at bar was unambiguous and excluded coverage.

1985Corp. v City of New York, 107 AD2d 610 ; see, also, Kalisch-Jarcho, Inc. v City of New York, 58 NY2d 377 ).

1985Such a clause will not bar an action based on delays or obstructions which were not within the contemplation of the parties when the contract was executed (Cauldwell-Wingate Co. v State of New York, 276 NY 365 ).

1984The 20% deduction should not be treated as taking away what benefits section 671 (subd 1, par [b]) bestows for ‘[i]t remains a basic principle of statutory construction that a court will “not by implication read into a clause of a rule or statute a limitation for which * * * no sound reason [can be found] and which would render the clause futile” ’ ” ( 49 NY2d 451, 457-458 , supra).

1984The reasoning adopted by the Court of Appeals in Kurcsics (supra) concerning the 20% deduction set forth in section 671 (subd 2, par [a]) of the Insurance Law, is similarly applicable to the deductions set forth in paragraph (b) of subdivision 2 of the same section.

1981Similarly, the clause may not bar proof on a counterclaim based upon an alleged breach of the warranty of habitability (Cosmopolitan Assoc. v Ortega, 90 Misc 2d 437 , supra).

1979It remains a basic principle of statutory construction that a court will "not by implication read into a clause of a rule or statute a limitation for which * * * no sound reason [can be found] and which would render the clause futile.” (Lederer v Wise Shoe Co., 276 NY 459, 465 .) In holding that the right of setoff embodied in section 151 of the Debtor and Creditor Law is not extinguished upon levy by service of execution pursuant to CPLR 5232 (subd [a]), we reject the analysis adopted by the court in Matter of Industrial Comr. of State of N. Y. v South Shore Amusements ( 55 AD2d 141 ) — the c

1975Co. ( 307 NY 111, 118 ) is directly in point: "Having incorporated the relevant portion of the subcontract in its insurance policy, and having indemnified the subcontractor against its liability thereunder, the insurance carrier must be deemed to have implemented this clause in its context as part of the entire subcontract, insomuch as protection of the subcontractor against its liability to indemnify the general contractor meant protecting it under this clause however the clause might be affected by the terms and provisions of the agreement as a whole.” Thus, the fact that Aetna can point to

1943Co. ( 285 N. Y. 629 ), where the clause read: “ In all cases of disagreements and actions brought by the insured the Company shall abide by the decision of the Russian judicial tribunals ”, and the court held that it was the intention of the parties that the policy be governed by Russian law.

1932In this case the will makes use of the words “ shall die, or have died before me, leaving lawful issue surviving.” Judge Andrews, writing for the court, said: “ The decision in this case turns on the point whether, under the will, the issue of the nephews and nieces of the testator, who died during his lifetime and before the making of the will take under the residuary clause, the share which their parents would have taken if they had survived the testator. * * * “ The main argument in support of the contention that the issue of nephews and nieces of the testator who died before the making of

1905As was said in Smith v. Alker ( 102 N. Y. 87 ), in speaking of a point made_by the appellant that the dispute between the parties should have been submitted to arbitration under the clause in the contract, “No evidence was given that the defendant took any steps for their -selection.

1901It may be that the plaintiff should have negatived the proposition in its complaint, but if the evident intent of the Legislature is to be carried out, and the proviso is to be given any force, the whole matter of the liability of the directors of “ a corporation formed for promoting or maintaining the principles of a political party ” must be referred to .the last clause of the section, where it comes under the well-established rule thatwhere there is a clause 'for1 the benefit of the pleader, and afterwards follows a proviso which is against him, he may plead the clause and leave it to his a