case cited doctrine in New York

1891It was expressly approved by the court of appeals in Ferguson v. Crawford, 70 N. Y. 253, 267 .

1891It was expressly approved by the court of appeals in Ferguson v. Crawford ( 70 N. Y. 253, 267 ).

1999(People v Bin Wahad, 154 Misc 2d 405 [1993].) It is noteworthy that predecessor counsel in the instant matter, Robert Boyle, also appeared for defendant in the Bin Wahad case.

1999The case cited by the defense, People v Qualls ( 70 NY2d 863 [1987]), is inapposite as it deals with the promise itself as evidence of perjured testimony, now dealt with under the Steadman rule, not as Brady impeachment material. .

1938(Bland v. Kaufman, 249 App. Div. 842 .) In our opinion the doctrine of the case cited has not been overruled by the determination of the Court of Appeals in the subsequent case of Halpin v. New York Railways Corp. ( 250 App. Div. 613 ; affd. without opinion, 276 N. Y. 545 ).

1938(Bland v. Kaufman, 249 App. Div. 842 .) In our opinion the doctrine of the case cited has not been overruled by the determination of the Court of Appeals in the subsequent case of Halpin v. New York Railways Corp. ( 250 App. Div. 613 ; affd. without opinion, 276 N. Y. 545 ).

1938(Bland v. Kaufman, 249 App. Div. 842 .) In our opinion the doctrine of the case cited has not been overruled by the determination of the Court of Appeals in the subsequent case of Halpin v. New York Railways Corp. ( 250 App. Div. 613 ; affd. without opinion, 276 N. Y. 545 ).

1916Co. v. Hinchliffe, 170 N. Y. 473 ), that as the demurrer assumes the truth of the facts alleged in defendant’s plea, if such facts, even though provable under the prior denials not incorporated in the defense, would defeat the cause of action, the defense is not demurrable, though it may be stricken out upon motion as redundant; and the doctrine of the case cited was applied in this department in Kraus v. Agnew, 80 App. Div. 1 , even under the test there laid down the defense in this action is insufficient.

1916Co. v. Hinchliffe, 170 N. Y. 473 ), that as the demurrer assumes the truth of the facts alleged in defendant’s plea, if such facts, even though provable under the prior denials not incorporated in the defense, would defeat the cause of action, the defense is not demurrable, though it may be stricken out upon motion as redundant; and the doctrine of the case cited was applied in this department in Kraus v. Agnew, 80 App. Div. 1 , even under the test there laid down the defense in this action is insufficient.

1902He is not, in such case, held for his error in judgment in failing to adopt the best means of escaping from a sudden peril; but he is liable for the original negligence which placed him in such peril, provided that negligence appreciably contributed to the happening of the accident.” See, also, Hogan v. Railroad Co., 124 N. Y. 647 , 26 N. E. 950 .

1902He is not, in such case, held for his error in judgment in failing to adopt the best means of escaping from a sudden peril; but he is liable for the original negligence which placed him in such peril, provided that negligence appreciably contributed to the happening of the accident.” See, also, Hogan v. Railroad Co., 124 N. Y. 647 , 26 N. E. 950 .

1901(Parmenter v. State, 135 N. Y. 154, 167 .) In the case cited the rule' was recognized and asserted that statutes which bear only upon the time in which to bring actions have been held to affect only the remedy upon contract as distinguished from its obligation, provided a reasonable time were left in which a party might commence his action after the passage of the statute (pp. 166, 167, citing authorities), and it was held that “ If the curtailment of the right to file a claim is to be regarded as the same in effect as the shortening of a statute of limitation, I think there can be no doubt th

1900(Place v. Chesebrough, 63 N. Y. 315 .) In the case cited the claim of the plaintiff, like the claim of the plaintiffs here, was set out in three separate causes of action, but the court held that it could have been properly stated quite as well in the form of one cause of action composed of different items, and, hence, it should not be inferred that a referable cause of action had been joined with non-referable causes with intent to deprive the defendant of his constitutional right to a jury trial.

1898The civil rights act of congress was considered in the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 3 , 3 Sup. Ct. 18; and the first and second sections thereof were held to be unconstitutional, for the reason that they were infringements upon the domain of the reserved powers of the states, unless they were authorized by the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments to the federal constitution; and the court held that they were not thereby authorized.

1898Gaskill v. Ransom, 56 Barb. 514 .) Regarding, therefore, the doctrine of the case cited as. the law of the present case, we are forced to, the conclusion that the order appealed from should be reversed.

1891The law commits the matter to their judgment, and when they have exercised that it is subject to no review or correction except as prescribed by law. ” The precise doctrine of the case cited has been applied in this department in the case of People v. Commissioners, 4 N. Y.

1888The error, however, is not fatal, for the reason that the defendant had, *5 when the jury were about to be sworn, four peremptory challenges, and he could have protected himself by the use of two of them from the apprehended injustice of the acceptance of the objectionable jurors.' Such is the rule established by the case of People v. Casey ( 96 N. Y. 115 ; 2 N. Y.