unique standard in New York

2025Homeowners Assn. , 228 AD3d at 835-836; Devoe v Nostrand II Meat Corp. , 216 AD3d 738, 739 ).

2025Thus, the Unique defendants and the Honeyman defendants each established, prima facie, that the threshold of the rear doorway was not in a dangerous or defective condition at the time of the plaintiff's fall ( see Devoe v Nostrand II Meat Corp. , 216 AD3d at 739 ; Ingram v Costco Wholesale Corp. , 117 AD3d 685, 685 ).

2025Thus, the Unique defendants and the Honeyman defendants each established, prima facie, that the threshold of the rear doorway was not in a dangerous or defective condition at the time of the plaintiff's fall ( see Devoe v Nostrand II Meat Corp. , 216 AD3d at 739 ; Ingram v Costco Wholesale Corp. , 117 AD3d 685, 685 ).

2022Corp. , 50 NY2d 183 ).

2022Damages are an essential element of a cause of action alleging tortious interference with contract ( see generally Galanos v Cifone , 144 AD3d 860, 860 ).

2022Moreover, the Unique defendants demonstrated that Michael's and Andrew's conduct did not rise to the level of "malice or wrongful conduct," which is required when contracts are terminable upon notice, as was the case here ( Waste Servs. v Jamaica Ash & Rubbish Removal Co. , 262 AD2d 401, 402 ; see Guard-Life Corp. v Parker Hardware Mfg.

2022Moreover, the Unique defendants demonstrated that Michael's and Andrew's conduct did not rise to the level of "malice or wrongful conduct," which is required when contracts are terminable upon notice, as was the case here ( Waste Servs. v Jamaica Ash & Rubbish Removal Co. , 262 AD2d 401, 402 ; see Guard-Life Corp. v Parker Hardware Mfg.

2004(Rahmey v Blum, supra; Podhorecki v Lauer’s Furniture Stores, 201 AD2d 947 [4th Dept 1994].) Respondent contends that the time expended by his counsel was reasonable and not excessive, redundant or otherwise unnecessary, and that the hourly rates requested are reasonable in light of the prevailing rates in the community for similar services and the experience, skill and reputation of his counsel.

2004Credit Servs., supra.) If warranted, the court may adjust the basic lodestar amount upward or downward in consideration of the unique factors of the case.

1987The Legislature solved this problem by enacting a unique immunity statute, which substantially expanded a witness’ protection beyond constitutional limits, so that such testimony could be compelled (CPL 50.10, 190.35; see also, CPL 190.40; Lefkowitz v Cunningham, 431 US 801, 809 ).

1986Since the action sounds in tort and a review of the complaint confirms that a timely notice of claim was not filed, Special Term should have dismissed the complaint as against the town (see, General Municipal Law §§ 50-e, 50-i; Davidson v Bronx Municipal Hosp., 64 NY2d 59, 61-62 ). .

1985Co. v Ane, 458 So 2d 239 [Fla]; cf. Gaynes v Allen, 128 Mich App 42 , 339 NW2d 678 ; Bichler v Union Bank & Trust Co., 745 F2d 1006, 1013 [adhering to New York Times standard under Michigan law]), New York adopted a unique standard in Chapadeau v Utica Observer-Dispatch ( 38 NY2d 196, 199 , supra), in which the Court of Appeals held that “where the content of the article is arguably within the sphere of legitimate public concern, which is reasonably related to matters warranting public exposition, the party defamed may recover; however, to warrant such recovery he must establish * * * that the

1985Although it is plain that plaintiff Otto Pollnow is neither a public official nor a public figure, it is equally plain that a private person’s alleged criminal conduct and the operation of the criminal justice system with respect to the disposition of the charges against such an individual are matters of legitimate public concern (see, Robart v Post-Standard, 52 NY2d 843 ; Carlucci v Poughkeepsie Newspapers, 88 AD2d 608 , affd 57 NY2d 883 ; Grobe v Three Vil.

1985Co. v Ane, 458 So 2d 239 [Fla]; cf. Gaynes v Allen, 128 Mich App 42 , 339 NW2d 678 ; Bichler v Union Bank & Trust Co., 745 F2d 1006, 1013 [adhering to New York Times standard under Michigan law]), New York adopted a unique standard in Chapadeau v Utica Observer-Dispatch ( 38 NY2d 196, 199 , supra), in which the Court of Appeals held that “where the content of the article is arguably within the sphere of legitimate public concern, which is reasonably related to matters warranting public exposition, the party defamed may recover; however, to warrant such recovery he must establish * * * that the

1985Co. v Ane, 458 So 2d 239 [Fla]; cf. Gaynes v Allen, 128 Mich App 42 , 339 NW2d 678 ; Bichler v Union Bank & Trust Co., 745 F2d 1006, 1013 [adhering to New York Times standard under Michigan law]), New York adopted a unique standard in Chapadeau v Utica Observer-Dispatch ( 38 NY2d 196, 199 , supra), in which the Court of Appeals held that “where the content of the article is arguably within the sphere of legitimate public concern, which is reasonably related to matters warranting public exposition, the party defamed may recover; however, to warrant such recovery he must establish * * * that the

1985Co. v Ane, 458 So 2d 239 [Fla]; cf. Gaynes v Allen, 128 Mich App 42 , 339 NW2d 678 ; Bichler v Union Bank & Trust Co., 745 F2d 1006, 1013 [adhering to New York Times standard under Michigan law]), New York adopted a unique standard in Chapadeau v Utica Observer-Dispatch ( 38 NY2d 196, 199 , supra), in which the Court of Appeals held that “where the content of the article is arguably within the sphere of legitimate public concern, which is reasonably related to matters warranting public exposition, the party defamed may recover; however, to warrant such recovery he must establish * * * that the

1985Although it is plain that plaintiff Otto Pollnow is neither a public official nor a public figure, it is equally plain that a private person’s alleged criminal conduct and the operation of the criminal justice system with respect to the disposition of the charges against such an individual are matters of legitimate public concern (see, Robart v Post-Standard, 52 NY2d 843 ; Carlucci v Poughkeepsie Newspapers, 88 AD2d 608 , affd 57 NY2d 883 ; Grobe v Three Vil.

1985Although it is plain that plaintiff Otto Pollnow is neither a public official nor a public figure, it is equally plain that a private person’s alleged criminal conduct and the operation of the criminal justice system with respect to the disposition of the charges against such an individual are matters of legitimate public concern (see, Robart v Post-Standard, 52 NY2d 843 ; Carlucci v Poughkeepsie Newspapers, 88 AD2d 608 , affd 57 NY2d 883 ; Grobe v Three Vil.

1985Co. v Ane, 458 So 2d 239 [Fla]; cf. Gaynes v Allen, 128 Mich App 42 , 339 NW2d 678 ; Bichler v Union Bank & Trust Co., 745 F2d 1006, 1013 [adhering to New York Times standard under Michigan law]), New York adopted a unique standard in Chapadeau v Utica Observer-Dispatch ( 38 NY2d 196, 199 , supra), in which the Court of Appeals held that “where the content of the article is arguably within the sphere of legitimate public concern, which is reasonably related to matters warranting public exposition, the party defamed may recover; however, to warrant such recovery he must establish * * * that the

1983Corp., supra, p 315; Monell v City of New York, 84 AD2d 717 ).