larger claim in New York

1897(Matter of the Commissioners of Central Park, 50 N. Y. 493 .) This is but the application of the larger rule that a statute is not to be deemed repealed by implication by a subsequent act upon the same subject unless the two are manifestly inconsistent with and repugnant to each other, or unless a clear intention is disclosed on the face of the later statute to repeal the former one.” The Transportation Corporations Act is neither inconsistent with nor repugnant to the provisions of chapter 194, Laws of 1890, already cited, nor is any intent to repeal or alter the latter manifest or clearly di

1883(Matter of the Commissioners of Central Park, 50 N. Y. 493 .) This is but the application of the larger rule that a statute is not to be deemed repealed by implication by a subsequent act upon the same subject, unless the two are manifestly inconsistent with, and repugnant to each other, or unless a clear intention is disclosed on the face of .the later statute, to repeal the former one.

1982Where claims are based on the same foundation facts, differences in legal theory will generally not permit relitigation (Hyman v Hillelson, 79 AD2d 725, 726 , affd 55 NY2d 624 ).

1982The record demonstrates that we are here concerned with only the question of interest whereas the previous action obviously involved a larger claim including interest on the recovery (see City of Buffalo v Clement Co., 28 NY2d 241, 266 ).

1982Where claims are based on the same foundation facts, differences in legal theory will generally not permit relitigation (Hyman v Hillelson, 79 AD2d 725, 726 , affd 55 NY2d 624 ).

1975Insistence for such safeguards is "but a special instance of the larger principle that the freedoms of expression must be ringed about with adequate bulwarks.” (Bantam Books v Sullivan, 372 US 58, 66 .) The sweeping, free-wheeling, penetrating and extremely protracted infiltration of the entire Lower East Side Community that took place in this case presents a very different situation from that in which an undercover police officer courageously infiltrates a conspiracy of international drug dealers or an armed band of hi-jackers.

1973That admittedly general test is rounded out more significantly in the language of the court in Wilson v. United States ( 59 F. 2d 390, 392 ): “If what is asked is useful evidence to vindicate the innocence of the accused or lessen the risk of false testimony or is essential to the proper disposition of the case, disclosure will be compelled.” Nonetheless, the rule itself is but an exception to a larger doctrine — the common-law privilege extended to a police informer against disclosure (see 8 Wigmore, Evidence [McNaughton rev.], § 2394).

1972(Kingsland v. Chetwood, 39 Hun, 602 .) ” (Matter of Lobbett v. Galpin, 228 App. Div. 65, 68 ; (emphasis added.) In the present proceeding, the claim of Rabinowitz exceeds the total .surplus money fund, and thus for the government to collect any of its approximately $6,000 claim it must seek to invalidate the other larger claim.

1970We concur with the denial of appellant’s application for a stay of arbitration of the larger claim, for the contract expressly intended “that all acts of the parties subsequent to the making of the contract which raise issues of fact or law, lie exclusively within the jurisdiction of the arbitrators” (Matter of Lipman [Haeuser Shellac Co.], 289 N. Y. 76, 80 ; see, also, Matter of Exercycle Corp. [Maratta], 9 N Y 2d 329, 336, 337).

1970We concur with the denial of appellant’s application for a stay of arbitration of the larger claim, for the contract expressly intended “that all acts of the parties subsequent to the making of the contract which raise issues of fact or law, lie exclusively within the jurisdiction of the arbitrators” (Matter of Lipman [Haeuser Shellac Co.], 289 N. Y. 76, 80 ; see, also, Matter of Exercycle Corp. [Maratta], 9 N Y 2d 329, 336, 337).

1970The parties, however, clearly waived their right to arbitrate the City Court claim, for their acts in connection therewith “were clearly inconsistent with the defendant’s later claim that the parties were obligated to settle their differences by arbitration ” (Matter of Zimmerman v. Cohen, 236 N. Y. 15, 19 ).

1930It is said that an intent to repeal a local law by the subsequent enactment of a general law is indicated where the two laws are repugnant and inconsistent, where it is not possible to assign a reasonable motive for retaining the provisions of the local law, where the subject of legislation is not a local matter, where the reasons for adopting the general statute are ample for repealing the special law, or by having regard to the language and the general scope of the general law, etc. In McKenna v. Edmundstone ( 91 N. Y. 231, 233 ) the court said: “ This is but the application of the larger ru

1915Respondent’s counsel, in his brief, cites Matter of Sayles ( 57 Misc.

1900(Lockwood v. Thorne, 18 N. Y. 285 ; Volkening v. De Graaf , 81 id. 268 .) It would hardly be contended that the statement made by the defendant in the petition for the voluntary dissolution, as to the sum due from him to the corporation, would bind the corporation or prevent it from enforcing a larger claim if it had one.

1900(Lockwood v. Thorne, 18 N. Y. 285 ; Volkening v. De Graaf , 81 id. 268 .) It would hardly be contended that the statement made by the defendant in the petition for the voluntary dissolution, as to the sum due from him to the corporation, would bind the corporation or prevent it from enforcing a larger claim if it had one.

1891Brooks v. White, 2 Met. 283 ; Bowker v. Childs, 3 Allen, 434 .

1876Ch., 1.) To this, Judge Story says, there are two exceptions only, one the case of alimony, the other “ the case of an account on which a balance is admitted by the defendant, but a larger claim is insisted on by the creditor.” (2 Story’s Equity Juris., § 1471; Bushnell v. Bushnell, 15 Barb., 399 .) That was the old doctrine.