equally well-established rule in New York

2009Juxtaposed against this principle is the equally well established principle that where the question is one of pure statutory construction “ ‘dependent only on accurate apprehension of legislative intent, there is little basis to rely on any special competence or expertise of the administrative agency and its interpretive regulations are therefore to be accorded much less weight’ ” (Matter of KSLM Columbus Apts., Inc. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 5 NY3d 303 , 312 [2005], quoting Kurcsics v Merchants Mut.

1995Bingham Operating Corp. v Eyrich, 265 App Div 562, 564 , lv denied 266 App Div 803 ; accord, Quotron Sys. v Gallman, 39 NY2d 428, 431 ), and respondents reply with the equally well-established rule that "[statutes creating tax exemptions 'must be construed against the taxpayer’ ” (Matter of Federal Deposit Ins.

1995Bingham Operating Corp. v Eyrich, 265 App Div 562, 564 , lv denied 266 App Div 803 ; accord, Quotron Sys. v Gallman, 39 NY2d 428, 431 ), and respondents reply with the equally well-established rule that "[statutes creating tax exemptions 'must be construed against the taxpayer’ ” (Matter of Federal Deposit Ins.

1995Corp. v Commissioner of Taxation & Fin., 83 NY2d 44, 49 , quoting Matter of Moran Towing & Transp.

1984(Matter of Selner, 261 App. Div. 618, 620 , affd. 287 N. Y. 664 ; see, also, Matter of Gulbenkian, 9 NY 2d 363, 370 ; Close v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 195 N. Y. 92, 100 ; Masterson v. Townshend, 123 N. Y. 458, 462 .)” (Matter of Thall, 18 NY2d 186, 192 , supra.) As Justice Carswell, formerly of this court, has observed with respect to a gift by implication: “A court may not give effect to a supposed intention of a testator which finds no expression in a will; but a court may give effect to an intention or purpose, indicated by implication, where the express language of the entire will manif

1984(Matter of Selner, 261 App. Div. 618, 620 , affd. 287 N. Y. 664 ; see, also, Matter of Gulbenkian, 9 NY 2d 363, 370 ; Close v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 195 N. Y. 92, 100 ; Masterson v. Townshend, 123 N. Y. 458, 462 .)” (Matter of Thall, 18 NY2d 186, 192 , supra.) As Justice Carswell, formerly of this court, has observed with respect to a gift by implication: “A court may not give effect to a supposed intention of a testator which finds no expression in a will; but a court may give effect to an intention or purpose, indicated by implication, where the express language of the entire will manif

1984(Matter of Selner, 261 App. Div. 618, 620 , affd. 287 N. Y. 664 ; see, also, Matter of Gulbenkian, 9 NY 2d 363, 370 ; Close v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 195 N. Y. 92, 100 ; Masterson v. Townshend, 123 N. Y. 458, 462 .)” (Matter of Thall, 18 NY2d 186, 192 , supra.) As Justice Carswell, formerly of this court, has observed with respect to a gift by implication: “A court may not give effect to a supposed intention of a testator which finds no expression in a will; but a court may give effect to an intention or purpose, indicated by implication, where the express language of the entire will manif

1984(Matter of Selner, 261 App. Div. 618, 620 , affd. 287 N. Y. 664 ; see, also, Matter of Gulbenkian, 9 NY 2d 363, 370 ; Close v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 195 N. Y. 92, 100 ; Masterson v. Townshend, 123 N. Y. 458, 462 .)” (Matter of Thall, 18 NY2d 186, 192 , supra.) As Justice Carswell, formerly of this court, has observed with respect to a gift by implication: “A court may not give effect to a supposed intention of a testator which finds no expression in a will; but a court may give effect to an intention or purpose, indicated by implication, where the express language of the entire will manif

1984(Matter of Selner, 261 App. Div. 618, 620 , affd. 287 N. Y. 664 ; see, also, Matter of Gulbenkian, 9 NY 2d 363, 370 ; Close v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 195 N. Y. 92, 100 ; Masterson v. Townshend, 123 N. Y. 458, 462 .)” (Matter of Thall, 18 NY2d 186, 192 , supra.) As Justice Carswell, formerly of this court, has observed with respect to a gift by implication: “A court may not give effect to a supposed intention of a testator which finds no expression in a will; but a court may give effect to an intention or purpose, indicated by implication, where the express language of the entire will manif

1977It is an equally well-established rule that an owner may not unilaterally, and without the consent of the other owners, subject property held in common to an easement in favor of other property either owned by him alone or third parties (Wilson v Ford, supra, pp 197-198 ; Palmer v Palmer, 150 NY 139, 149 ; Crippen v Morss, 49 NY 63, 68 ; 2 Warren’s Weed New York Real Property, Easements, § 17.01).

1977It is an equally well-established rule that an owner may not unilaterally, and without the consent of the other owners, subject property held in common to an easement in favor of other property either owned by him alone or third parties (Wilson v Ford, supra, pp 197-198 ; Palmer v Palmer, 150 NY 139, 149 ; Crippen v Morss, 49 NY 63, 68 ; 2 Warren’s Weed New York Real Property, Easements, § 17.01).

1977It is an equally well-established rule that an owner may not unilaterally, and without the consent of the other owners, subject property held in common to an easement in favor of other property either owned by him alone or third parties (Wilson v Ford, supra, pp 197-198 ; Palmer v Palmer, 150 NY 139, 149 ; Crippen v Morss, 49 NY 63, 68 ; 2 Warren’s Weed New York Real Property, Easements, § 17.01).

1959(Bishop v. Bishop, 257 N. Y. 40 ; Hillen v. Iselin, 144 N. Y. 365 ; Matter of Moyse, supra and cases cited.) It is from this fact that it follows, as Judge Collins pointed out, that property subject to the exercise of a testamentary power of appointment can only be administered under the jurisdiction and supervision of the court having control over the donor’s estate which necessarily requires that the trustee named by the donee must qualify and administer the trust in the estate of the donor.

1959It is well settled in this State 1 £ that a party to an illegal contract cannot ask a court of law to help him carry out his illegal object, nor can such a person plead or prove in any court a case in which he, as a basis for his claim, must show forth his illegal purpose (Stone v. Freeman, 298 N. Y. 268, 271 .) To this well-established principle of law, however, there is an equally well-established exception.

1959(Bishop v. Bishop, 257 N. Y. 40 ; Hillen v. Iselin, 144 N. Y. 365 ; Matter of Moyse, supra and cases cited.) It is from this fact that it follows, as Judge Collins pointed out, that property subject to the exercise of a testamentary power of appointment can only be administered under the jurisdiction and supervision of the court having control over the donor’s estate which necessarily requires that the trustee named by the donee must qualify and administer the trust in the estate of the donor.

1959(Matter of McEwan v. City of New York, 279 App. Div. 802 , affd. 304 N. Y. 628 .) In view of the unreasonable delay in applying for leave, the application is denied.

1959(Matter of Brown v. Board of Trustees of Town of Hamptonburg, 303 N. Y. 484 , supra.) The granting of the application herein, made 16 months after the accident, would also circumvent the equally well-established rule that an unreasonable delay in moving to file a late notice of claim requires a denial of the application.

1959(Matter of McEwan v. City of New York, 279 App. Div. 802 , affd. 304 N. Y. 628 .) In view of the unreasonable delay in applying for leave, the application is denied.

1938If, on the other hand, the actual state of things corresponds to that contemplated by the alternative valid branch of the contingency, the gift takes effect.’ ” (Fowler v. Depau, 26 Barb. 224, 237 .) (All italics in original.) Additional statements and applications of this exception to the general rule may be found in Matter of Trevor ( 239 N. Y. 6, 17 ; Tiers v. Tiers (98 id. 568, 573); Schettler v. Smith (41 id. 328, 336 et seq.); Church v. Wilson ( 152 App. Div. 844, 850 ; affd., 209 N. Y. 553 ); Matter of Mount ( 107 App. Div. 1 , 7; affd., 185 N. Y. 162 ; Matter of Johnson, 233 App. Div.

1938If, on the other hand, the actual state of things corresponds to that contemplated by the alternative valid branch of the contingency, the gift takes effect.’ ” (Fowler v. Depau, 26 Barb. 224, 237 .) (All italics in original.) Additional statements and applications of this exception to the general rule may be found in Matter of Trevor ( 239 N. Y. 6, 17 ; Tiers v. Tiers (98 id. 568, 573); Schettler v. Smith (41 id. 328, 336 et seq.); Church v. Wilson ( 152 App. Div. 844, 850 ; affd., 209 N. Y. 553 ); Matter of Mount ( 107 App. Div. 1 , 7; affd., 185 N. Y. 162 ; Matter of Johnson, 233 App. Div.

1938If, on the other hand, the actual state of things corresponds to that contemplated by the alternative valid branch of the contingency, the gift takes effect.’ ” (Fowler v. Depau, 26 Barb. 224, 237 .) (All italics in original.) Additional statements and applications of this exception to the general rule may be found in Matter of Trevor ( 239 N. Y. 6, 17 ; Tiers v. Tiers (98 id. 568, 573); Schettler v. Smith (41 id. 328, 336 et seq.); Church v. Wilson ( 152 App. Div. 844, 850 ; affd., 209 N. Y. 553 ); Matter of Mount ( 107 App. Div. 1 , 7; affd., 185 N. Y. 162 ; Matter of Johnson, 233 App. Div.

1938If, on the other hand, the actual state of things corresponds to that contemplated by the alternative valid branch of the contingency, the gift takes effect.’ ” (Fowler v. Depau, 26 Barb. 224, 237 .) (All italics in original.) Additional statements and applications of this exception to the general rule may be found in Matter of Trevor ( 239 N. Y. 6, 17 ; Tiers v. Tiers (98 id. 568, 573); Schettler v. Smith (41 id. 328, 336 et seq.); Church v. Wilson ( 152 App. Div. 844, 850 ; affd., 209 N. Y. 553 ); Matter of Mount ( 107 App. Div. 1 , 7; affd., 185 N. Y. 162 ; Matter of Johnson, 233 App. Div.

1938If, on the other hand, the actual state of things corresponds to that contemplated by the alternative valid branch of the contingency, the gift takes effect.’ ” (Fowler v. Depau, 26 Barb. 224, 237 .) (All italics in original.) Additional statements and applications of this exception to the general rule may be found in Matter of Trevor ( 239 N. Y. 6, 17 ; Tiers v. Tiers (98 id. 568, 573); Schettler v. Smith (41 id. 328, 336 et seq.); Church v. Wilson ( 152 App. Div. 844, 850 ; affd., 209 N. Y. 553 ); Matter of Mount ( 107 App. Div. 1 , 7; affd., 185 N. Y. 162 ; Matter of Johnson, 233 App. Div.

1938If, on the other hand, the actual state of things corresponds to that contemplated by the alternative valid branch of the contingency, the gift takes effect.’ ” (Fowler v. Depau, 26 Barb. 224, 237 .) (All italics in original.) Additional statements and applications of this exception to the general rule may be found in Matter of Trevor ( 239 N. Y. 6, 17 ; Tiers v. Tiers (98 id. 568, 573); Schettler v. Smith (41 id. 328, 336 et seq.); Church v. Wilson ( 152 App. Div. 844, 850 ; affd., 209 N. Y. 553 ); Matter of Mount ( 107 App. Div. 1 , 7; affd., 185 N. Y. 162 ; Matter of Johnson, 233 App. Div.

1938If, on the other hand, the actual state of things corresponds to that contemplated by the alternative valid branch of the contingency, the gift takes effect.’ ” (Fowler v. Depau, 26 Barb. 224, 237 .) (All italics in original.) Additional statements and applications of this exception to the general rule may be found in Matter of Trevor ( 239 N. Y. 6, 17 ; Tiers v. Tiers (98 id. 568, 573); Schettler v. Smith (41 id. 328, 336 et seq.); Church v. Wilson ( 152 App. Div. 844, 850 ; affd., 209 N. Y. 553 ); Matter of Mount ( 107 App. Div. 1 , 7; affd., 185 N. Y. 162 ; Matter of Johnson, 233 App. Div.

1938If, on the other hand, the actual state of things corresponds to that contemplated by the alternative valid branch of the contingency, the gift takes effect.’ ” (Fowler v. Depau, 26 Barb. 224, 237 .) (All italics in original.) Additional statements and applications of this exception to the general rule may be found in Matter of Trevor ( 239 N. Y. 6, 17 ; Tiers v. Tiers (98 id. 568, 573); Schettler v. Smith (41 id. 328, 336 et seq.); Church v. Wilson ( 152 App. Div. 844, 850 ; affd., 209 N. Y. 553 ); Matter of Mount ( 107 App. Div. 1 , 7; affd., 185 N. Y. 162 ; Matter of Johnson, 233 App. Div.