statutes rule in New York

2018It cannot be concluded at this stage of the proceedings that a declaration as to the validity or invalidity of those statutes would "have no practical effect on the parties" ( Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce, v Pataki, 100 NY2d 801, 811 ).

1990We have found no indication that the Dram Shop Act is among the statutes to which the doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply (see, e.g., New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs. v McCall, 109 A.D.2d 953 [3d Dept, 1985] [ respondeat superior does not apply to sex discrimination cases under Executive Law]; Brady v County of Tioga, 100 A.D.2d 676 [3d Dept, 1984] [ respondeat superior unavailable against municipality in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions]).

1990We have found no indication that the Dram Shop Act is among the statutes to which the doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply (see, e.g., New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs. v McCall, 109 A.D.2d 953 [3d Dept, 1985] [ respondeat superior does not apply to sex discrimination cases under Executive Law]; Brady v County of Tioga, 100 A.D.2d 676 [3d Dept, 1984] [ respondeat superior unavailable against municipality in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions]).

1979Relying upon Matter of Parsons v State Tax Comm. ( 34 NY2d 190 ), Special Term held that an administrative determination of Gage’s personal liability for the taxes was not authorized by the statutes and that a hearing was required to determine whether he was personally liable.

1976The city’s liability is not absolute but based upon negligence, and the violation of the statutes or rule 23 implementing the statute constitutes evidence of negligence (Conte v Large Scale Development Co., 10 NY2d 20, 29 ; and see Corbett v Brown, 32 AD2d 27, 30-32 ).

1976The city’s liability is not absolute but based upon negligence, and the violation of the statutes or rule 23 implementing the statute constitutes evidence of negligence (Conte v Large Scale Development Co., 10 NY2d 20, 29 ; and see Corbett v Brown, 32 AD2d 27, 30-32 ).

1975Also in Matter of McCoy v Mayor of City of N. Y. ( 73 Misc 2d, at p 512 ) the court, citing section 212 of the Judiciary Law which sets forth the powers of the Administrative Board, found that the power of designating court employees, their numbers, functions, salary, and deployment does not reside in the fiscal authority but resides in the courts "by statute and as a matter of inherent right.” Inherent in this interpretation of the Constitution and the statutes is the requirement for ,an amicable accommodation of judicial needs by appropriating bodies.

1961Yaras v. Kinnaw, 303 N. Y. 224, 228 ).

1959Moreover, the circumstances here present establish ratification by defendant of plaintiff’s claim and, additionally, would support an estoppel to contest it (Rason Asphalt v. Town of Oyster Bay, 6 A D 2d 810; Moore v. Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of N. Y., 73 N. Y. 238 ; Brady V.

1940So far as concerns the doctrine that where the parties are engaged in an illegal scheme the courts will not aid the one or the other (Restatement of the Law, Restitution, § 140), that doctrine is inapplicable here, for in the present action the plaintiff does not have to rely upon any illegal scheme in order to establish a good cause of action, It is said that this court is committed by the decision in Robertson v. Sayre ( 134 N. Y. 97 ).

1935The Commission in one of its opinions below, and its counsel here, rely upon an extract from the opinion of this court in Matter of Niagara, Lockport & Ontario Power Co. v. Prendergast ( 229 App. Div. 295 ) to support its holding that because the plant had been paid for out of earnings, the village was not entitled to a return thereon.

1930Co. v. Pedrick, 222 Fed. 75 .) Does this complaint state two separate causes of action under the said statutes and rule 90, or but a single cause of action?

1877His applica tion must show the existence of a cause of action or a substantial defense, as the case may be, and the particular facts sought to be elicited; the status or right of the party seeking the discovery, entitling him to maintain it; and that the matter sought to be discovered is, upon the pleading or case presented, material (Bailey v. Dean, 5 Barb. 297 ; McIntyre v. Mancius, 16 Johns. 592 ).

1877His applica tion must show the existence of a cause of action or a substantial defense, as the case may be, and the particular facts sought to be elicited; the status or right of the party seeking the discovery, entitling him to maintain it; and that the matter sought to be discovered is, upon the pleading or case presented, material (Bailey v. Dean, 5 Barb. 297 ; McIntyre v. Mancius, 16 Johns. 592 ).