receipt claim in New York

1867The court held, that a receipt is an exception to the general rule, that a writing cannot be explained or contradicted by parol, citing Ensign v. Webster ( 1 Johns.

1867The court held, that a receipt is an exception to the general rule, that a writing cannot be explained or contradicted by parol, citing Ensign v. Webster ( 1 Johns.

2020Co. v Adelaida Physical Therapy, P.C. , 147 AD3d 437 [1st Dept 2017]; National Liab. & Fire Ins.

2009Co. ( 24 Misc 3d 230 [2009]) wherein the court found that the notice requirements for verification requests, as contained in 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 and 65-3.6, do not apply to examinations under oath (EUOs) that are noticed prior to the insurance company’s receipt of claim forms (preclaim EUOs).

2005Co., 90 NY2d 274 [1997]).

1994The defendant argues that the prosecution’s failure to reveal the existence of this secret deal constituted misconduct in light of what defense counsel characterizes as the "confluence of Rosario, Brady and Giglio” (citing People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286 , cert denied 368 US 866 ; Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 ; Giglio v United States, 405 US 150 ).

1994The defendant argues that the prosecution’s failure to reveal the existence of this secret deal constituted misconduct in light of what defense counsel characterizes as the "confluence of Rosario, Brady and Giglio” (citing People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286 , cert denied 368 US 866 ; Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 ; Giglio v United States, 405 US 150 ).

1994The defendant argues that the prosecution’s failure to reveal the existence of this secret deal constituted misconduct in light of what defense counsel characterizes as the "confluence of Rosario, Brady and Giglio” (citing People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286 , cert denied 368 US 866 ; Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 ; Giglio v United States, 405 US 150 ).

1994The defendant argues that the prosecution’s failure to reveal the existence of this secret deal constituted misconduct in light of what defense counsel characterizes as the "confluence of Rosario, Brady and Giglio” (citing People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286 , cert denied 368 US 866 ; Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 ; Giglio v United States, 405 US 150 ).

1988We perceive no reason to disturb that finding (see, People v Delgado, 118 AD2d 580 , lv denied 67 NY2d 1052 ; People v Tucker, 101 AD2d 601 ).

1988We perceive no reason to disturb that finding (see, People v Delgado, 118 AD2d 580 , lv denied 67 NY2d 1052 ; People v Tucker, 101 AD2d 601 ).

1982The court is aware of the opinion of Judge Torres in Catherine H. v James S. ( 112 Misc 2d 429 ).

1977To the same effect are Green v State of New York ( 28 AD2d 747 ), Hard v State of New York ( 30 AD2d 631 ), and Dependable Trucking Co. v New York State Thruway Auth. ( 41 AD2d 985 ), which hold that where the claim is mailed on the 90th day and received by the clerk on the 91st day, the claim is not timely.

1977To the same effect are Green v State of New York ( 28 AD2d 747 ), Hard v State of New York ( 30 AD2d 631 ), and Dependable Trucking Co. v New York State Thruway Auth. ( 41 AD2d 985 ), which hold that where the claim is mailed on the 90th day and received by the clerk on the 91st day, the claim is not timely.

1977To the same effect are Green v State of New York ( 28 AD2d 747 ), Hard v State of New York ( 30 AD2d 631 ), and Dependable Trucking Co. v New York State Thruway Auth. ( 41 AD2d 985 ), which hold that where the claim is mailed on the 90th day and received by the clerk on the 91st day, the claim is not timely.

1969The majority of the court affirmed the conviction and followed the decision in Breithaupt which held that the withdrawal of blood under such circumstances did not offend (p. 760) “ that sense of justice ” of which they spoke in Rochin v. California ( 342 U. S. 165 ) where a doctor forced an emetic solution through a tube into Bochin’s stomach over his protests.