claimants motion in New York

1999Corp. v Miller, 222 AD2d 802, 803 ; Suarez v State of New York, 193 AD2d 1037, 1038 ), but rather is more properly characterized as one seeking leave to renew (see, Mindy’s Wine Cellar v American & Foreign Ins.

1999Corp. v Miller, 222 AD2d 802, 803 ; Suarez v State of New York, 193 AD2d 1037, 1038 ), but rather is more properly characterized as one seeking leave to renew (see, Mindy's Wine Cellar v American & Foreign Ins.

1999Corp. v Miller, 222 AD2d 802, 803 ; Suarez v State of New York, 193 AD2d 1037, 1038 ), but rather is more properly characterized as one seeking leave to renew (see, Mindy’s Wine Cellar v American & Foreign Ins.

1999Corp. v Miller, 222 AD2d 802, 803 ; Suarez v State of New York, 193 AD2d 1037, 1038 ), but rather is more properly characterized as one seeking leave to renew (see, Mindy's Wine Cellar v American & Foreign Ins.

2014In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of this Court is as broad as that of the trial court, and we may render a judgment we find warranted by the facts, bearing in mind that in a close case, the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Yu Ling Hu *861 v Zapas, 108 AD3d 621 [2013]; Pernell v 287 Albany Ave., LLC, 95 AD3d 1094 [2012]).

2014In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of this Court is as broad as that of the trial court, and we may render a judgment we find warranted by the facts, bearing in mind that in a close case, the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Yu Ling Hu *861 v Zapas, 108 AD3d 621 [2013]; Pernell v 287 Albany Ave., LLC, 95 AD3d 1094 [2012]).

1995Claimants’ motion is thus granted and they are directed, in accordance with the accompanying order, to file their claim with the Chief Clerk of the Court of Claims and to serve their claim upon both the Attorney-General and ORDA (see, Finnerty v New York State Thruway Auth., 75 NY2d 721 ). .

1987Corp., 54 NY2d 18 [1981].) Claimants are hereby awarded the additional sum of $238,191.62 with statutory interest thereon as set forth above.

1986Co., 105 AD2d 1069 ).

1976However, we believe the practical effect of defendant’s position, if correct, is that the two subject subdivisions are inconsistent and, moreover, said subdivision 3 is unconstitutional vis-a-vis section 19 of article III of the Constitution. 3 The burden is thus on defendant to demonstrate such unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt (see Wiggins v Town of Somers, 4 NY2d 215, 218 ) and the claimants at bar are aided by the presumption of statutory constitutionality.

1972(Matter of Huie [Furman], 20 N Y 2d 568, 572; Herpe v. Herpe, 225 N. Y. 323, 327 .) Claimants’ motion to reopen the final decree was based on the subsequent approval by the Court of Appeals of a 6% rate of interest and the theory that the city discriminates -by paying interest at such rate only to those condemnees in this proceeding who appealed from the final decree.

1962That the city did not inform the claimants of their tardiness or that it has conducted an examination of the claimants is not a waiver of the defense of the untimely filing of the claim (cf. Heller v. New York City Housing Auth., 26 Misc 2d 653, 655 ; Quinn v. City of New York, 25 Misc 2d 116, 118 ).

1962That the city did not inform the claimants of their tardiness or that it has conducted an examination of the claimants is not a waiver of the defense of the untimely filing of the claim (cf. Heller v. New York City Housing Auth., 26 Misc 2d 653, 655 ; Quinn v. City of New York, 25 Misc 2d 116, 118 ).

1956Formerly, the rule was that the claimants must claim the same thing (Crane v. McDonald, supra).

1953In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action “ Settled rules of construction are to be applied. ‘ If in any aspect upon the facts stated the plaintiff is entitled to a recovery, the motion should be denied.’ (Dyer v. Broadway Central Bank, 252 N. Y. 430, 432 .) The whole of the pleading must be considered.

1928(Kirkpatrick Home for Childless Women v. Kenyon, 119 Misc. 349 ; Matter of Daly, 58 App. Div. 49 ; Lorillard v. Clyde, 14 2 N. Y. 456 .) The preliminary objection made to the appointment of the special guardian is overruled.

1928(Kirkpatrick Home for Childless Women v. Kenyon, 119 Misc. 349 ; Matter of Daly, 58 App. Div. 49 ; Lorillard v. Clyde, 14 2 N. Y. 456 .) The preliminary objection made to the appointment of the special guardian is overruled.

1927(Matter of People [Norske Lloyd Insurance Co.], 242 N. Y. 148 .) To sustain their position claimants point to the fact that the guaranty was executed in New York and treat the instrument as entirely distinct from the insurance policies which had been issued in Oslo.

1918Where there is no relationship between the deceased and the claimants that rule does not apply.” In Matter of Simpson ( 144 N. Y.