cannot rule in New York

2018Inasmuch as the issue of defendants' legitimate authority or justification is material to each of the causes of action in the complaint, the court cannot rule on those claims without impermissibly resolving questions of tribal law ( see Seneca , 293 AD2d at 58 ; cf. Cayuga Nation , 824 F3d at 330 ).

2018Inasmuch as the issue of defendants' legitimate authority or justification is material to each of the causes of action in the complaint, the court cannot rule on those claims without impermissibly resolving questions of tribal law ( see Seneca , 293 AD2d at 58 ; cf. Cayuga Nation , 824 F3d at 330 ).

2013Corp., 200 AD2d 543 , 545 [1st Dept 1994] [“the establishment of a waiver ... is ordinarily a question of fact”]; see also Peck v Peck, 232 AD2d 540, 540 [2d Dept 1996] [“waiver is not created by negligence, oversight, or thoughtlessness, and cannot be inferred from mere silence”].) Then, too, the court cannot reach the issue of whether the City might be estopped from enforcing the free admission requirement, as the court cannot rule on such issue when the City is not a party to this action.

2012Sheehan v City of New York ( 40 NY2d 496 [1976]), which third-party defendants also cite, is inapplicable to this case.

2010Co., 292 AD2d 873 [4th Dept 2002]; Kern v City of Rochester, 267 AD2d 1026 [appeal No. 1] [4th Dept 1999]), this court cannot rule out that, even if Justice Mintz’s guidelines on the uses of hypothetical questions at depositions were in fact the subject of the appeal in Lawson, and irrespective of what was actually argued on appeal with regard to the permissibility or impermissibility of such questions as a matter of law, the summary affirmance merely signaled the Appellate Division’s view that Justice Mintz’s rulings with regard to those issues were (whichever way they went) sound exercises o

2010Co., 292 AD2d 873 [4th Dept 2002]; Kern v City of Rochester, 267 AD2d 1026 [appeal No. 1] [4th Dept 1999]), this court cannot rule out that, even if Justice Mintz’s guidelines on the uses of hypothetical questions at depositions were in fact the subject of the appeal in Lawson, and irrespective of what was actually argued on appeal with regard to the permissibility or impermissibility of such questions as a matter of law, the summary affirmance merely signaled the Appellate Division’s view that Justice Mintz’s rulings with regard to those issues were (whichever way they went) sound exercises o

1996Viewing the evidence, as we must, in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see, Matter of Dimitri W., 198 AD2d 832 ; Matter of Jason B., 186 AD2d 481 , 482), we conclude that the proof is legally sufficient to support the determination and that the determination is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 ).

1996Viewing the evidence, as we must, in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see, Matter of Dimitri W., 198 AD2d 832 ; Matter of Jason B., 186 AD2d 481 , 482), we conclude that the proof is legally sufficient to support the determination and that the determination is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 ).

1996Viewing the evidence, as we must, in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see, Matter of Dimitri W., 198 AD2d 832 ; Matter of Jason B., 186 AD2d 481 , 482), we conclude that the proof is legally sufficient to support the determination and that the determination is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 ).

1993Finally, in the face of plaintiff/ petitioner’s declared unwillingness to bear the cost of retrieval of computerized information as in Ball v State of New York ( 101 Misc 2d 554 [Ct Cl 1979]), this is an option which the court has not pursued.

1988(See generally, People v Huntley, 15 NY2d 72 ; Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 .) To allow a police officer’s statement of what a defendant is alleged to have said to serve as the only basis for an ongoing prosecution opens the door to potential abuse.

1988(See generally, People v Huntley, 15 NY2d 72 ; Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 .) To allow a police officer’s statement of what a defendant is alleged to have said to serve as the only basis for an ongoing prosecution opens the door to potential abuse.

1983VOLUNTARINESS OF WAIVER Under Parker (supra, p 140 ) “[T]he validity of any waiver including one which could be implied, must be tested according to constitutional standards.” The court (p 141) reads in a “state of mind” requirement, calling for “at a minimum [that the defendant must be] informed * * * of the nature of the right to be present at trial and the consequences of failing to appear for trial”.

1982However, since the parties obviously have unequal knowledge of the documents sought, where the agency fails to give sufficiently detailed information with respect to the material allegedly exempt to permit the trial court to decide the issue, in camera inspection is one vehicle for protecting the rights of both.” (See, also, Matter of Westchester Rockland Newspapers v Kimball, 50 NY2d 575 , supra; Matter of Westchester Rockland Newspapers v Mosczydlowski, 58 AD2d 234 ; Matter of Fink v Lefkowitz, 47 NY2d 567 , supra; Jordan v Hammock, 109 Misc 2d 1052 .) Therefore the court cannot rule that ac

1982However, since the parties obviously have unequal knowledge of the documents sought, where the agency fails to give sufficiently detailed information with respect to the material allegedly exempt to permit the trial court to decide the issue, in camera inspection is one vehicle for protecting the rights of both.” (See, also, Matter of Westchester Rockland Newspapers v Kimball, 50 NY2d 575 , supra; Matter of Westchester Rockland Newspapers v Mosczydlowski, 58 AD2d 234 ; Matter of Fink v Lefkowitz, 47 NY2d 567 , supra; Jordan v Hammock, 109 Misc 2d 1052 .) Therefore the court cannot rule that ac

1982However, since the parties obviously have unequal knowledge of the documents sought, where the agency fails to give sufficiently detailed information with respect to the material allegedly exempt to permit the trial court to decide the issue, in camera inspection is one vehicle for protecting the rights of both.” (See, also, Matter of Westchester Rockland Newspapers v Kimball, 50 NY2d 575 , supra; Matter of Westchester Rockland Newspapers v Mosczydlowski, 58 AD2d 234 ; Matter of Fink v Lefkowitz, 47 NY2d 567 , supra; Jordan v Hammock, 109 Misc 2d 1052 .) Therefore the court cannot rule that ac

1982However, since the parties obviously have unequal knowledge of the documents sought, where the agency fails to give sufficiently detailed information with respect to the material allegedly exempt to permit the trial court to decide the issue, in camera inspection is one vehicle for protecting the rights of both.” (See, also, Matter of Westchester Rockland Newspapers v Kimball, 50 NY2d 575 , supra; Matter of Westchester Rockland Newspapers v Mosczydlowski, 58 AD2d 234 ; Matter of Fink v Lefkowitz, 47 NY2d 567 , supra; Jordan v Hammock, 109 Misc 2d 1052 .) Therefore the court cannot rule that ac

1971(See Purcell v. WTRY Broadcasting Corp., 43 Misc 2d 172 ; Delair v. Southworth Tractor & Mach.

1897The wife was held liable, and Judge Finch says, at page 404:' “The case, therefore, is brought within the rule which makes her receipt and retention of the fruits and product of the fraud involve a liability on account of it, although herself innocent of personal participation in the wrong.” (Citing Garner v. Magnam, supra, and other cases; Crans v. Hunter, 28 N. Y. 389 .) A principal cannot claim the benefit of a purchase obtained by his agent by the use of misrepresentations and at the same time repudiate the representations as unauthorized.

1897(Lane v. Black, 21 W.

1892Graf v. Cunningham, 109 N. Y. 369 . 25.

1836(Matter of Twenty-sixth street, N. Y., 12 Wendell, 203.) But this cannot be a rule of universal application.