legitimacy claim in New York

2018Another familiar safeguard is the expectation, shared by the majority, that courts unable to determine whether withheld documents fall entirely within the scope of the asserted exemption will "test the legitimacy of a claim of confidentiality" by ordering an "in camera review of sensitive or confidential materials" (majority op. at 237, 76 N.Y.S.3d at 471-72, 100 N.E.3d at 810-11; see Matter of Gould v. New York City Police Dep't, 89 N.Y.2d 267 , 275, 653 N.Y.S.2d 54 , 675 N.E.2d 808 [1996] ). 3 "Supreme Court should decide" whether in camera review is necessary on the basis of an agency's sub

2003These are factors to consider in determining how valid the assertions are; albeit, if they are made out, justice requires that they be explored in a hearing (cf. People v. Chait , 7 A D 2d 399, 401, affd. 6 N Y 2d 855)." [FN6] A delay in making a claim can be considered in evaluating the seriousness and validity of a claim and may undermine the legitimacy of the claim ( People v Melio , 304 AD2d 247, 252 ; People v Hanley , 255 AD2d 837, 838 ).

2003These are factors to consider in determining how valid the assertions are; albeit, if they are made out, justice requires that they be explored in a hearing (cf. People v. Chait , 7 A D 2d 399, 401, affd. 6 N Y 2d 855)." [FN6] A delay in making a claim can be considered in evaluating the seriousness and validity of a claim and may undermine the legitimacy of the claim ( People v Melio , 304 AD2d 247, 252 ; People v Hanley , 255 AD2d 837, 838 ).

2000Lab. v Dowling, 232 AD2d 901, 902 ), it is apparent that the warranty of enforceability may only “be breached” in the event that plaintiff establishes the legitimacy of the defense asserted.

1996Of course, the classic statement on the legitimacy presumption is that of Chief Judge Cardozo in Matter of Findlay ( 253 NY 1 ): "Potent, indeed, the presumption is, one of the strongest and most persuasive known to the law * * * and yet subject to the sway of reason” (supra, at 7 [citations omitted]).

1990If retirement proof is allowed, the court should caution the jury in its final instructions that there is no evidence in the case of any retirement benefits and that the jury must not speculate as to the possibility of plaintiff’s receipt of such benefits in assessing damages or determining liability or any other issue in the case (cf., Matter of Lanzano v City of New York, 71 NY2d 208, 212 ).

1989"Where a university has published written procedures governing tenure, the legitimacy of a claim to tenure acquired outside those procedures is vitiated because there is no basis for mutuality” (Scagnelli v Whiting, 554 F Supp 77, 79 ).

1986If the Legislature did not so intend, then Briggins’ residual interest in his position was sufficient to trigger the due process requirement of an opportunity to prove "the legitimacy of his claim” (Perry v Sindermann, supra, at p 603 ).

1984H We next conclude that the arbitrator’s interpretation of the clause “ ‘ready to proceed’ ” was not completely irrational and, therefore, must be upheld (see, e.g., Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 NY2d 299 ; Matter of Local Div. 1179, Amalgamated Tr.

1975(Vroman v Fahey, 78 Misc 2d 1081 ; Brown v Lavine, 78 Misc 2d 821 ; Allen v Lavine, 82 Misc 2d 680 .) It thus follows that the respondent herein acted arbitrarily and capriciously and in violation of his own departmental regulations by automatically denying emergency assistance to petitioner without even the benefit of an immediate or preferred hearing to determine the legitimacy of the claim with respect to either the actual reason for loss of the money or the degree of destitution of the applicant.

1975(Vroman v Fahey, 78 Misc 2d 1081 ; Brown v Lavine, 78 Misc 2d 821 ; Allen v Lavine, 82 Misc 2d 680 .) It thus follows that the respondent herein acted arbitrarily and capriciously and in violation of his own departmental regulations by automatically denying emergency assistance to petitioner without even the benefit of an immediate or preferred hearing to determine the legitimacy of the claim with respect to either the actual reason for loss of the money or the degree of destitution of the applicant.

1975(Vroman v Fahey, 78 Misc 2d 1081 ; Brown v Lavine, 78 Misc 2d 821 ; Allen v Lavine, 82 Misc 2d 680 .) It thus follows that the respondent herein acted arbitrarily and capriciously and in violation of his own departmental regulations by automatically denying emergency assistance to petitioner without even the benefit of an immediate or preferred hearing to determine the legitimacy of the claim with respect to either the actual reason for loss of the money or the degree of destitution of the applicant.

1963(Berkliff Undergarment Corp. v. Weissman, 277 App. Div. 964 ; Matter of Village of Lawrence [Hicks Development Corp.], 285 App. Div. 823 .) Only in this context can an intelligent appraisal be made as to the legitimacy of the claim of privilege.

1938(Battu v. Smoot, 211 App. Div. 101 .) The defendant’s conception of the plaintiffs’ rascality could in no sense be determinative of the legitimacy of the claim which the defendant asserted against the corporate plaintiff.