generally applicable standard in New York

2014Reserve v Board of Assessors of the Town of N. Hudson, 106 AD3d 1232 , 1234 [2013] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]).

2014Reserve v Board of Assessors of the Town of N. Hudson, 106 AD3d 1232 , 1234 [2013] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]).

2014Moreover, the claim is not applicable where, as here, each parcel was separately assessed following the filing of subdivision maps (see RPTL 504 [4]; Matter of Bernard v Rosenthal, 172 AD2d 931 [1991], lv denied 78 NY2d 864 [1991] [unless impracticable, subdivision lots should be separately assessed]). -3- 517488 After hearing the testimony and written report by petitioner's appraiser, Supreme Court determined, and respondent does not now dispute, that petitioner overcame the generally applicable presumption of validity, by demonstrating "[s]ubstantial evidence" of overvaluation, or, put diffe

2013Proof of voluntariness compatible with due process, we have said, will depend upon the particular circumstances—“the totality”—of each case (Anderson, 42 NY2d at 38 , citing Clewis v Texas, 386 US 707, 708 [1967]; Fikes v Alabama, 352 US 191, 197 [1957]; see also Dickerson v United States, 530 US 428, 434 [2000] [“The due process test takes into consideration the totality of all the surrounding circumstances—both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation”] [citation and internal quotation marks omitted]).

1999Dept. of Social Servs., 44 NY2d 322 [1978]; see also, Matter of Lemon v New York City Tr.

1998The complaint of plaintiff law firm, alleging, inter.alia, that the firm changed its position to its detriment by reason of its retainer agreements with the Union and Welfare Fund defendants, sufficiently states a claim for compensation according to the terms of those retainer agreements, notwithstanding the generally applicable rule that a client may discharge its attorney at will and, in so doing, relegate outgoing counsel to recover in quantum meruit for the value of its services (see, Greenberg v Remick & Co., 230 NY 70 ; Atkins & O’Brien v ISS Intl.

1982(See, e.g., Lindenberg Corp. v Howland, 115 Misc 244 ; Brumm v Gilbert, 50 App Div 430 .) Here, the guarantees provided that they would inure to and be enforceable by Chase or its parent or subsidiary and Chase’s and their “successors and assigns”.

1982(See, e.g., Lindenberg Corp. v Howland, 115 Misc 244 ; Brumm v Gilbert, 50 App Div 430 .) Here, the guarantees provided that they would inure to and be enforceable by Chase or its parent or subsidiary and Chase’s and their “successors and assigns”.

1978More importantly, New York courts have refused to grant an exemption under a statute requiring ownership where legal title is held by a nonqualifying entity and the property is leased exclusively to a qualifying entity (Hebrew Free School Assn. of N. Y. v Mayor etc. of City of N. Y, 99 NY 488 ; People ex rel.