branch inquiry in New York

1886(Halsey v. Sinsebaugh, 15 N. Y. 485 ; Guy v. Mead, 22 id. 462.) The other branch of the inquiry has not been very distinctly adjudicated in this State, although the admissibility of entries made under "circumstances like those in this case was apparently approved in Payne v. Hodge ( 71 N. Y. 598 ).

1886They are admitted in connection with, and as auxiliary to the oral evidence of the witness, and this whether the witness, on seeing the entries, recalls the facts, or can only verify the entries as a true record made or seen by him at, or soon after the transaction to which it relates. ( Halsey v. Sinsebaugh, 15 N.Y. 485 ; Guy v. Mead, 22 id. 462.) The other branch of the inquiry has not been very distinctly adjudicated in this State, although the admissibility of entries made under circumstances like those in this case was apparently approved in Payne v. Hodge ( 71 N.Y. 598 ).

1886(Halsey v. Sinsebaugh, 15 N. Y. 485 ; Guy v. Mead, 22 id. 462.) The other branch of the inquiry has not been very distinctly adjudicated in this State, although the admissibility of entries made under "circumstances like those in this case was apparently approved in Payne v. Hodge ( 71 N. Y. 598 ).

1886They are admitted in connection with, and as auxiliary to the oral evidence of the witness, and this whether the witness, on seeing the entries, recalls the facts, or can only verify the entries as a true record made or seen by him at, or soon after the transaction to which it relates. ( Halsey v. Sinsebaugh, 15 N.Y. 485 ; Guy v. Mead, 22 id. 462.) The other branch of the inquiry has not been very distinctly adjudicated in this State, although the admissibility of entries made under circumstances like those in this case was apparently approved in Payne v. Hodge ( 71 N.Y. 598 ).

1854R., 235; Gouverneur v. Lynch, 2 Paige, 300 ; Stuyvesant v. Hall, 2 Barb.

1854R., 235; Gouverneur v. Lynch, 2 Paige, 300 ; Stuyvesant v. Hall, 2 Barb.

1854R., 409; Stevens v. Cooper, id., 425; Hayes v. Ward, 4 id., 123; Evertson v. Booth, 19 John., 486 ; The York and Jersey Steamboat Ferry Co . v. The Associates of the Jersey Co., Hopk., 460; James v. Hubbard, 1 Paige, 235 .) The rule in equity requiring parcels of land incumbered by a judgment or mortgage to be subjected in the inverse order of their alienation by the debtor, is a branch of this rule. ( Clowes v. Dickenson, 5 John Ch.

1854R., 409; Stevens v. Cooper, id., 425; Hayes v. Ward, 4 id., 123; Evertson v. Booth, 19 John., 486 ; The York and Jersey Steamboat Ferry Co. v. The Associates of the Jersey Co., Hopk., 460; James v. Hubbard, 1 Paige, 235 .) The riile in equity requiring parcels of land incumbered by a judgment or mortgage to be subjected in the inverse order of their alienation by the debtor, is a branch of this rule. ( Clowes v. Dickenson, 5 John Ch.

2016(See Hargrove v State of New York, 138 AD3d 777 [2d Dept 2016].) 2 With regard to the timeliness of the claim brought on behalf of Keren Crespo, her attorney argues that this branch of the claim is timely because, due to Keren Crespo’s cerebral palsy, her claim is covered by the tolling provision set forth in Court of Claims Act § 10 (5).

2009With respect to the demand for mental health records of the victim, defense counsel cites Giglio v United States ( 405 US 150 [1972]) and People v Gissendanner ( 48 NY2d 543 [1979]) as supporting his request for disclosure of information bearing on the victim’s credibility.

2009With respect to the demand for mental health records of the victim, defense counsel cites Giglio v United States ( 405 US 150 [1972]) and People v Gissendanner ( 48 NY2d 543 [1979]) as supporting his request for disclosure of information bearing on the victim’s credibility.

1986Moreover, it has been repeatedly emphasized that "[congressional intent to preempt state laws is not to be lightly inferred” (Health Care Plan of N. J. v Schweiker, 553 F Supp 440, 446 ; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v Ware, 414 US 117, 127 ).

1986Moreover, it has been repeatedly emphasized that "[congressional intent to preempt state laws is not to be lightly inferred” (Health Care Plan of N. J. v Schweiker, 553 F Supp 440, 446 ; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v Ware, 414 US 117, 127 ).

1986It should be noted, however, that with regard to this branch of the doctrine, a strong presumption remains against preemption since a State’s authority to regulate hospital costs "should not be superseded by federal regulations unless that was the clear intent of Congress” (Rebaldo v Cuomo, supra, at p 138; Alessi v Raybestos-Manhattan, 451 US 504, 522 ).

1979(See Ebasco Servs. v Paciñc Intermountain Express Co., 398 F Supp 565 .) Accordingly, it was error to grant plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment against Branch and to deny Branch’s motion for leave to assert the affirmative defense.

1957And it is but a further natural growth of the rule, that the communication is to be privileged from being put in evidence for or against another, lest it, by means of the knowledge of it thus given, be used to his harm for the sustaining or defense of a suit thereafter begun in which he may be made a party.” What was said by the court in Coplon v. United States ( 191 F. 2d 749, 757 ) is applicable to the case at bar: “We are confronted, however, with another and a much more serious question with respect to the government’s alleged wiretapping.

1913(Matter of Caffrey, 52 App. Div. 264 ; Comesky v. Village of Suffern, 179 N. Y. 393 ; Matter of Borup, supra.) The statute (§ 59), so far as material to this branch of our inquiry, provides as follows: “ In any town in which a town highway shall be repaired, graded and macadamized from curb to curb by the authorities of the town the owner or owners of the land adjacent to the said highway shall be entitled to recover from the town the damages resulting from any change of grade.

1913(Matter of Caffrey, 52 App. Div. 264 ; Comesky v. Village of Suffern, 179 N. Y. 393 ; Matter of Borup, supra.) The statute (§ 59), so far as material to this branch of our inquiry, provides as follows: “ In any town in which a town highway shall be repaired, graded and macadamized from curb to curb by the authorities of the town the owner or owners of the land adjacent to the said highway shall be entitled to recover from the town the damages resulting from any change of grade.

1913(Matter of Caffrey, 52 App. Div. 264 ; Comesky v. Village of Suffern, 179 N. Y. 393 ; Matter of Borup, supra.) The statute (§ 59), so far as material to this branch of our inquiry, provides as follows: “ In any town in which a town highway shall be repaired, graded and macadamized from curb to curb by the authorities of the town the owner or owners of the land adjacent to the said highway shall be entitled to recover from the town the damages resulting from any change of grade.

1879Co., 55 N. Y., 169 , and cases cited.) The other branch of the defense, viz., that Boss, in his answers contained in the application for the policy, made an untrue statement in declaring that his father had not died of or been afflicted with insanity, was not in our judgment proved so conclusively as to justify the court in taking the case from the jury.