condemnation rule in New York

1982For reasons which follow, we disagree with Special Term and conclude that Urban Renewal failed to give sufficient notice to activate the condemnation clause of the lease and that Lane Bryant is entitled to a condemnation award commensurate with the value of its leasehold interest (see Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v State of New York, 22 NY2d 75, 84 ).

1960(Emphasis supplied.) The Court of Appeals, likewise, in People v. Walsh ( 262 N. Y. 140, 149 ) held that as a general rule the defense has no right to go upon a tour of investigation in the hope that they will find something which will aid them.

1955Earlier dated “ test certificates ” of the police vehicles of the type and within the condemnation of the rule laid down in People v. Boehme ( 1 Misc 2d 629 ) decided simultaneously herewith (see, also, People v. Greenhouse, 4 Misc 2d 692 ; People v. Rice, 206 Misc. 999 ; People v. Rothstein, 1 Misc 2d 516 ) were received over the objection and exception of the defendant to prove the accuracy of the police vehicle speedometers.

1955Earlier dated “ test certificates ” of the police vehicles of the type and within the condemnation of the rule laid down in People v. Boehme ( 1 Misc 2d 629 ) decided simultaneously herewith (see, also, People v. Greenhouse, 4 Misc 2d 692 ; People v. Rice, 206 Misc. 999 ; People v. Rothstein, 1 Misc 2d 516 ) were received over the objection and exception of the defendant to prove the accuracy of the police vehicle speedometers.

1955Earlier dated “ test certificates ” of the police vehicles of the type and within the condemnation of the rule laid down in People v. Boehme ( 1 Misc 2d 629 ) decided simultaneously herewith (see, also, People v. Greenhouse, 4 Misc 2d 692 ; People v. Rice, 206 Misc. 999 ; People v. Rothstein, 1 Misc 2d 516 ) were received over the objection and exception of the defendant to prove the accuracy of the police vehicle speedometers.

1955Earlier dated “ test certificates ” of the police vehicles of the type and within the condemnation of the rule laid down in People v. Boehme ( 1 Misc 2d 629 ) decided simultaneously herewith (see, also, People v. Greenhouse, 4 Misc 2d 692 ; People v. Rice, 206 Misc. 999 ; People v. Rothstein, 1 Misc 2d 516 ) were received over the objection and exception of the defendant to prove the accuracy of the police vehicle speedometers.

1948Co., 306 U. S. 332 ; Timken Roller Bearing Co. v. N. L.

1939On the contrary, we believe that the mere statement of the above theory and its conclusion — which the jury has accepted and upon which the defendant’s conviction rests — is enough to bring it within the condemnation of a rule which has respect gained from age and frequent repetition that “ where circumstantial evidence is relied upon, * * * the ultimate fact may not be based on inference upon inference.” (People v. Lewis, supra, p. 39; Shepherd v. People, 19 N. Y. 537, 545 ; People v. Fitzgerald, 156 id. 253.) What is required of circumstantial evidence, if it is to be effective as a means of

1939(People v. Razezicz, 206 N. Y. 249, 272 ; People v. Giordano, supra, p. 580 ; People v. Harris, 136 N. Y. 423, 429 .) In the case before us there was direct evidence from the defendant himself that at the time of the collision Lee was behind the steering wheel operating the car — and in support of that testimony the defendant points to the undisputed proof that while he suffered no marks, bruises or injuries of any kind upon his body between his chin and his knees, Lee suffered a fracture of the breast bone and fractures of the second, third, fourth and fifth ribs close to their juncture with

1939(People v. Razezicz, 206 N. Y. 249, 272 ; People v. Giordano, supra, p. 580 ; People v. Harris, 136 N. Y. 423, 429 .) In the case before us there was direct evidence from the defendant himself that at the time of the collision Lee was behind the steering wheel operating the car — and in support of that testimony the defendant points to the undisputed proof that while he suffered no marks, bruises or injuries of any kind upon his body between his chin and his knees, Lee suffered a fracture of the breast bone and fractures of the second, third, fourth and fifth ribs close to their juncture with

1939(People v. Razezicz, 206 N. Y. 249, 272 ; People v. Giordano, supra, p. 580 ; People v. Harris, 136 N. Y. 423, 429 .) In the case before us there was direct evidence from the defendant himself that at the time of the collision Lee was behind the steering wheel operating the car — and in support of that testimony the defendant points to the undisputed proof that while he suffered no marks, bruises or injuries of any kind upon his body between his chin and his knees, Lee suffered a fracture of the breast bone and fractures of the second, third, fourth and fifth ribs close to their juncture with

1916The evidence of executor McDowell, who made these purchases, fails to show that they were of the class of securities referred to in Matter of Hall, supra. It also appears that the investment in these securities falls under the condemnation of the rule in Ormiston v. Olcott, ( 84 N. Y. 339, 344 ), where the court said: “We do not hesitate, therefore, to recognize and declare as the general rule that the trustee who invests, beyond the jurisdiction does so at 'the peril of being held responsible for the safety of the investment.” We now pass to the consideration of the matter of the contention o

1916The evidence of executor McDowell, who made these purchases, fails to show that they were of the class of securities referred to in Matter of Hall, supra. It also appears that the investment in these securities falls under the condemnation of the rule in Ormiston v. Olcott, ( 84 N. Y. 339, 344 ), where the court said: “We do not hesitate, therefore, to recognize and declare as the general rule that the trustee who invests, beyond the jurisdiction does so at 'the peril of being held responsible for the safety of the investment.” We now pass to the consideration of the matter of the contention o

1905(Cl arke v. Heylman, 80 App. Div. 572 .) The notice of lien, therefore, was proper in this regard and does not fall within the condemnation of the rule which requires that the labor and material performed and furnished and to be performed and furnished shall be separately stated.

1904(Higgins v. Ridgway, 153 N. Y. 130 ; Persons v. Hawkins, 41 App. Div. 171 .) The contents of the conveyance are not impugned, but the contention is that the delivery was conditional, and that the condition essential to maké it absolute never arrived, and the proof was received solely as bearing upon the purpose in passing o ver the conveyance to the plaintiff.

1904(Higgins v. Ridgway, 153 N. Y. 130 ; Persons v. Hawkins, 41 App. Div. 171 .) The contents of the conveyance are not impugned, but the contention is that the delivery was conditional, and that the condition essential to maké it absolute never arrived, and the proof was received solely as bearing upon the purpose in passing o ver the conveyance to the plaintiff.

1898Up to this point in the trial of the case it had not been claimed, or even hinted, that the plaintiff’s brain was in any danger of becoming affected in consequence of the injuries which he had received, and this witness only spoke of such a result as a remote possibility, not likely to occur in this- case, but one which sometimes happened “in many cases.” We think this evidence was purely speculative and conjectural, and as such it was directly within the condemnation of the rule laid down in the Strohm Case, 96 N. Y. 305 , and in the Tozer Case, 105 N. Y. 617 , 11 N. E. 369 .

1898Up to this point in the trial of the case it had not been claimed, or even hinted, that the plaintiff’s brain was in any danger of becoming affected in consequence of the injuries which he had received, and this witness only spoke of such a result as a remote possibility, not likely to occur in this- case, but one which sometimes happened “in many cases.” We think this evidence was purely speculative and conjectural, and as such it was directly within the condemnation of the rule laid down in the Strohm Case, 96 N. Y. 305 , and in the Tozer Case, 105 N. Y. 617 , 11 N. E. 369 .

1898Up to this point in the trial of the case it had not been claimed, or even hinted, that the plaintiff’s brain was in any danger of becoming affected in consequence of the injuries which he had received, and this witness only spoke of such a result as a remote possibility, not likely to occur in this- case, but one which sometimes happened “in many cases.” We think this evidence was purely speculative and conjectural, and as such it was directly within the condemnation of the rule laid down in the Strohm Case, 96 N. Y. 305 , and in the Tozer Case, 105 N. Y. 617 , 11 N. E. 369 .