declaration rule in New York

2016(Keller, 168 Misc 2d at 694-695 , citing Jerome Prince, Richardson on Evidence §§ 8-903-8-907 [Farrell 11th ed 1995].) It is accordingly obvious that the issue presented in this case has nothing at all to do with the “pedigree exception” to the hearsay rule.

1997They also seek a declaration that such hearing, in any event, must be conducted pursuant to the State Administrative Procedure Act and that the remaining respondents 1 have no authority to initiate or conduct a trustee removal proceeding. 2 Supreme Court dismissed the petition finding, inter alia, that the remedy of prohibition does not lie in this proceeding ( 170 Misc 2d 135 ).

1987The defendants’ appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see, Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248 ).

1962They cannot, however, create an account stated so as to bind the estate of their deceased with respect to transactions in which the deceased himself had engaged during his lifetime.” (Matter of Lopez, 274 App. Div. 819 .) The whole tenor of section 210 of the Surrogate’s Court Act supports this declaration of principle.

1951They are denounced as contravening public policy, a declaration of principle that no one can lawfully do that which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against the public good (Veazey v. Allen, 173 N. Y. 359, 368 ).

1933(Taylor v. Pennsylvania Co., 78 Ky. 348, 351 .) Such would be the effect of the Vermont statute by a declaration that the claim for personal injuries caused by the decedent, which it has created, is a debt payable by and collectible from the New York executor.

1924So in Matter of Durant (supra), where the intention was not as clear as in the case at bar, McLaughlin, J., commenting on previous decisions by the Court of Appeals, said (p. 46): “ In the Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. case the provision of the will under consideration was: ‘ I give, devise and bequeath what would have been his or her share, if living, to his or her issue, if any, such issue to take equally what would have been the parent’s share.’ The court held that the fair meaning of this provision was that the issue were to take by right of representation, and that the distribution should be

1916The modern cases are uniform in the declaration of the rule, which is reiterated in Havholm v. Whale Creek Iron Works, 159 App. Div. 578, 582 , and which requires the reversal of the order in the instant case.

1913Thus, it is laid down that the higher degree of proof is required when the claim is based upon a contract to be enforced after the death of the person against whose estate it is asserted (Shakespeare v. Markham, 72 N. Y. 400, 403 ) ; as if it made a difference whether the contract was by its terms enforceable after the death or was enforceable at a time which happened to come after the death.

1911The notice excluded may have been notice of each debt as it was acquired by the plaintiff, as some authorities hold necessary (Douglass v. Howland, 24 Wend. 35, 49 ), but unless the notice included relates to a demand, the words “ other and further ” impress me as meaningless.

1905(Donnelly v. City of Brooklyn, supra, 19 .) I think it will not be a strained interpretation to regard the enabling act as giving the unpaid taxes the ordinary incidents of judgements or contractual obligations in being subject to enforcement by action and in drawing legal interest from- the date of default.