determining factors in New York

1906Smith, J.: In Matter of Warnock ( 103 App. Div. 62 ) this, court has said that “ The determining rule for the" disposition of these cases is thus expressed in the head note of Matter of Tompkins ( 69 App. Div. 474 ): ‘ Where, on an appeal to the Appellate Division from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, made in a proceeding for the probate of a will, it appears that the disposition, which should be made bf the questions of fact presented by the evidence given is not free from doubt, and the result reached in the Surrogate’s Court is not entirely satisfactory, the Appellate División will send t

1905The determining rule for the disposition of these cases is thus expressed in the headnote of Matter of Tompkins, 69 App. Div. 474 , 74 N. Y.

2021This Court's approach did not preclude consideration of the testimony elicited at the hearing under the circumstances present in Turner v Sideris ( 187 AD3d 963 ) or HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Sprei ( 180 AD3d 763 ), as in both cases, this Court determined that a hearing to determine the validity of service of process was warranted.

2021This Court's approach did not preclude consideration of the testimony elicited at the hearing under the circumstances present in Turner v Sideris ( 187 AD3d 963 ) or HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Sprei ( 180 AD3d 763 ), as in both cases, this Court determined that a hearing to determine the validity of service of process was warranted.

2019Accordingly, Groh repudiated the practice, approved in the earlier cases of Nieves ( 36 NY2d at 401-402 ) and Rainey ( 14 NY2d at 36 ), under which a court determining a challenge to the specificity of a warrant could consider the unincorporated documents submitted in support of the warrant application ( see People v Covlin , 58 Misc 3d at 1003; People v English , 52 Misc 3d at 325 ; United States v Zemlyansky , 945 F Supp 2d 438, 453 [SD NY 2013]). [FN4] The majority nevertheless attempts to distinguish Groh , citing dicta in that case to support its conclusion that a warrant that "omits some

2019Accordingly, Groh repudiated the practice, approved in the earlier cases of Nieves ( 36 NY2d at 401-402 ) and Rainey ( 14 NY2d at 36 ), under which a court determining a challenge to the specificity of a warrant could consider the unincorporated documents submitted in support of the warrant application ( see People v Covlin , 58 Misc 3d at 1003; People v English , 52 Misc 3d at 325 ; United States v Zemlyansky , 945 F Supp 2d 438, 453 [SD NY 2013]). [FN4] The majority nevertheless attempts to distinguish Groh , citing dicta in that case to support its conclusion that a warrant that "omits some

2019Accordingly, Groh repudiated the practice, approved in the earlier cases of Nieves ( 36 NY2d at 401-402 ) and Rainey ( 14 NY2d at 36 ), under which a court determining a challenge to the specificity of a warrant could consider the unincorporated documents submitted in support of the warrant application ( see People v Covlin , 58 Misc 3d at 1003; People v English , 52 Misc 3d at 325 ; United States v Zemlyansky , 945 F Supp 2d 438, 453 [SD NY 2013]). [FN4] The majority nevertheless attempts to distinguish Groh , citing dicta in that case to support its conclusion that a warrant that "omits some

2006(Vitiello v Captain Bill’s Rest., 191 AD2d 429 [2d Dept 1993]; Stark v Chock Full O’Nuts, 77 Misc 2d 553, 554 [1974].) Thus, both the nature of the object and how the food was prepared should merely be factors, and not the sole determining factors in considering the broader question of whether the plaintiff should have expected to find the item in his or her food.

1997Thus, the standard for determining a violation is ordinary negligence, which is measured by the conduct of a reasonably prudent person (see, People v Grogan, 260 NY 138, 148-150 ).

1993Corp., 159 AD2d 46, 49 ), defendant has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that plaintiffs age discrimination claim is without merit as a matter of law and that it is entitled to summary judgment.

1981In City of White Plains v Ferraioli ( 34 NY2d 300 ), the court distinguished between a group home and a commune style of living.

1972The requirement of a warrant to seize imposes no inconvenience whatever, or at least none which is constitutionally cognizable in a legal system that regards warrantless searches as " per se unreasonable ’ in the absence of ‘ exigent circumstances.’ ” (Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S., at p. 470 .) Here, as in Goolidge, the determining factors are advance police knowledge of the existence and location of the evidence, police intention to seize it, and ample opportunity for obtaining a warrant.

1961The proper considerations before this court in determining this claim under the enabling act are set forth in Farrington v. State of New York ( 248 N. Y. 112 ).

1953Co. ( 252 N. Y. 394 ), and clarified at some length in Matter of Baduski v. Gumpert Co. ( 277 App. Div. 591 ).

1936Co., supra.) It would follow that if the longshoreman is a seaman, the pay which he receives becomes the wages of a seaman; and it is the wages of a seaman, not the seaman, that the Federal statute exempts.

1931A grant of land bordering on even a large stream carries title to the center of the stream unless the bed is excluded by the terms of the instrument (Chenango Bridge Co. v. Paige, 83 N. Y. 178 ), and title to the bed of some of the smaller lakes, although navigable, has been held to be in the riparian owners.

1930Thus the Court of Appeals says in Matter of Tatum ( 169 N. Y. 514, at p. 517 ): “ The power of sale, which was given * * * was discretionary, by its terms, and for that reason cannot be considered as, of itself, effecting an equitable conversion of the real estate.

1921One definition given by the Century Dictionary of “ house- hold ” is as follows: “An organized family and whatever pertains to it as a whole; a domestic establishment.” It is also stated in the American and English Encyclopaedia of Law (Vol. 15 [2d ed.], p. 773): “ The general definition of household when used as a qualifying word, is pertaining to or belonging to the house or family.” It is to be borne in mind also that the phraseology of the will does not confine the legacies to those who were in fact part of the household of the testator, and if it did, it may be that the determining inquir

1921One definition given by the Century Dictionary of “ house- hold ” is as follows: “An organized family and whatever pertains to it as a whole; a domestic establishment.” It is also stated in the American and English Encyclopaedia of Law (Vol. 15 [2d ed.], p. 773): “ The general definition of household when used as a qualifying word, is pertaining to or belonging to the house or family.” It is to be borne in mind also that the phraseology of the will does not confine the legacies to those who were in fact part of the household of the testator, and if it did, it may be that the determining inquir

1905The determining rule for the disposition of these cases is thus expressed in the headnote of Matter of Tompkins, 69 App. Div. 474 , 74 N. Y.