security exception in New York

1957(Cf. Cole v. Young, 351 U. S. 536 ; Matter of Ping gera v. Municipal Civil Service Comm., 206 Misc. 615 .) The job of opening and closing the doors of a subway train is hardly one of the “ strategic posts in transportation” to which Mr. Justice Jackson adverted in Dennis v. United States, 341 U. S. 494, 564 (see opinion of Conway, Ch.

1956In the case at bar, although there is a finding that appellant’s employment in the position of conductor endangers the security or defense of the nation and State, similar to the general finding in Cole v. Young (supra), there is absent the finding which the Supreme Court held a necessary requisite to suspension or discharge under the Federal law, to wit, that appellant’s position as conductor was one in the category to which the Security Risk Law is limited.

1999(Mkrtchyan v 61st Woodside Assocs., 209 AD2d 490 [2d Dept 1994].) Accordingly, it is ordered that UOB and Axiom’s motion for summary judgment is granted; and it is further ordered that Fleet’s cross motion for summary judgment is denied; and it is further ordered that Security’s motion for summary judgment is granted; and it is further ordered that Interior’s cross motion for summary judgment is granted, and the Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the action as to defendants UOB, Axiom, Security, and Interior. .

1978School Dist. [United Liverpool Faculty Assn.], 42 NY2d 509, 514 ).

1965This case was cited with approval in Matter of Lerner v. Casey (2 N Y 2d 355, affd. 357 U. S. 468 , reh. den. 358 U. S. 858 [1958]) in which Chief Judge Conway reached the conclusion that the Transit Authority had been properly designated a security agency and stated (p. 367): “ The Transit Authority performs a function necessary to the security or defense of the nation and the state.

1965This case was cited with approval in Matter of Lerner v. Casey (2 N Y 2d 355, affd. 357 U. S. 468 , reh. den. 358 U. S. 858 [1958]) in which Chief Judge Conway reached the conclusion that the Transit Authority had been properly designated a security agency and stated (p. 367): “ The Transit Authority performs a function necessary to the security or defense of the nation and the state.

1964In Sens, Inc. v. Hammer ( 265 N. Y. 344, 346 ) a case involving termination of a lease by notice where the Appellate Division had held there was no surviving liability for damages equal to the rent ( 239 App. Div. 174 ) there was a reversal, but the official headnote indicates the security clause in part read as fallows: “ in the event of the termination of this lease by summary proceedings, re-entry, or any other manner, whatsoever, by reason of the tenant’s default, then the tenant shall nót thereby become entitled to the payment of said debt, but the landlord may retain the amount so paid w

1964In Sens, Inc. v. Hammer ( 265 N. Y. 344, 346 ) a case involving termination of a lease by notice where the Appellate Division had held there was no surviving liability for damages equal to the rent ( 239 App. Div. 174 ) there was a reversal, but the official headnote indicates the security clause in part read as fallows: “ in the event of the termination of this lease by summary proceedings, re-entry, or any other manner, whatsoever, by reason of the tenant’s default, then the tenant shall nót thereby become entitled to the payment of said debt, but the landlord may retain the amount so paid w

1959The Transit Authority ‘ ‘ found, upon review, that, upon ah the evidence, reasonable grounds existed for the belief that because of his doubtful trust and reliability, the employment of petitioner [Lerner] in the position of conductor endangered the security or defense of the nation and the State.” ( 2 NY 2d 355, 361 , supra.) In the Lerner case the Court of Appeals found that the employees of the New York City Transit Authority were included within the intendment of the Security Risk Law and that the city investigation commissioner had jurisdiction to conduct the inquiry.

1957(Cf. Cole v. Young, 351 U. S. 536 ; Matter of Ping gera v. Municipal Civil Service Comm., 206 Misc. 615 .) The job of opening and closing the doors of a subway train is hardly one of the “ strategic posts in transportation” to which Mr. Justice Jackson adverted in Dennis v. United States, 341 U. S. 494, 564 (see opinion of Conway, Ch.

1956It is precisely that inference of guilt from the truthful assertion of the same privilege in answer to the same questions which was repudiated by the Supreme Court in Slochower v. Board of Educ. ( 350 U. S. 551, 557 ) when it said: ‘‘ we must condemn the practice of imputing a sinister meaning to the exercise of a person’s constitutional right under the Fifth Amendment. * * * The privilege against self-incrimination would be reduced to a hollow mockery if its exercise could be taken as equivalent either to a confession of guilt or a conclusive presumption of perjury.” The Security Bisk Law doe

1926The said security shall bear interest at the rate of four per cent, per annum from the dates of the respective deposits, due semi-annually and to be credited on account of the rental becoming due the first day of January and July of each and every year.” The language of the security clause in the lease in the case of Matter of Atlas (supra) on which the tenants rely, is interpreted to mean “ that the sum was paid to the lessors as a fund continuing to belong to the lessee, but intrusted to the lessors to hold as security against defaults of the lessee in accordance with the terms of the lease,

1924The extent of their enforcibility is, I think, shown by the holdings and opinions in Scott v. Montells, 109 N. Y. 1 ; Chaude v. Shepard, 122 id. 397; Caesar v. Rubinson, 174 id. 492, and Schottman v. Maze Realty Co., 150 App. Div. 559 , from which, and other authorities, it will be seen that while the penalty feature is void the security feature remains, and that the security clause as a whole is to be construed as allowing the lessor to retain the deposit until the lessee shall have shown that he is entitled to the return of all of it, if he fully performed, or to such part of it as does not

1924The extent of their enforcibility is, I think, shown by the holdings and opinions in Scott v. Montells, 109 N. Y. 1 ; Chaude v. Shepard, 122 id. 397; Caesar v. Rubinson, 174 id. 492, and Schottman v. Maze Realty Co., 150 App. Div. 559 , from which, and other authorities, it will be seen that while the penalty feature is void the security feature remains, and that the security clause as a whole is to be construed as allowing the lessor to retain the deposit until the lessee shall have shown that he is entitled to the return of all of it, if he fully performed, or to such part of it as does not

1892Association v. Read, 124 N. Y. 189 , 26 N. E.

1829It has been decided here that the partial failure of the consideration of a note may be given in evidence in a suit on a note between the parties, to it, under a notice to reduce the amount of damages, ( 2 Wendell, 431 .) New trial denied.