theory underlying principle in New York

1949It has been stated that “ Perhaps the most fundamental characteristic of Anglo-Saxon law as distinguished from other systems of jurisprudence is its deference to the principle of stare decisis, which may be defined as the obligation of courts to adhere to the results of decided cases and to refrain from disturbing general principles which have been established by judicial determination. [Citing cases.] The theory underlying' this principle is that ‘ certainty is of the very essence of the law. ’ 1 That shifting and changing rules or principles do not constitute law,’ and that ‘ The avoidance o

1937Co., 65 App. Div. 493, 495 .) The theory underlying this principle is that “ certainty is of the very essence of the law.” “ That shifting and changing rules or principles do not constitute law,” and that “ The avoidance or prevention of litigation through the establishment of fixed and certain rules is a useful and beneficent effect of litigations had.” (Matter of Grifenhagen v. Ordway, 218 N. Y. 451, 458 .) Whereas the application of this principle has frequently been limited to the decisions of courts of last resort (Matter of Brolasky, 302 Penn.

2002Corp., 246 AD2d 324, 325 ; Cseh v New York City Tr.

2002As for the appellant’s belated request to amend the amount of damages being claimed, as well as the theory underlying its claim for such damages, while leave to amend is, in the absence of prejudice or surprise to the opposing party, generally freely given, in view of appellant’s utter failure to offer a reasonable excuse for its long delay in seeking amendment, the denial of its motion to amend constituted a proper exercise of discretion (see, Hanford v Plaza Packaging Corp., 284 AD2d 179, 180 ; Konrad v 136 E. 64th St.

1995The theory underlying the doctrine of anticipatory breach of contract received extensive discussion by the Court of Appeals in the case of Ga Nun v Palmer ( 202 NY 483 [1911]).

1994That is, and as noted in Brown , since the statement of a present sense impression is made substantially contemporaneously with the event being described, the likelihood of deliberate misrepresentation or faulty recollection is diminished if not eliminated (supra, 80 NY2d, at 733 ).

1994To prevail on this theory, claimant had the burden of proving that the State affirmatively created a dangerous condition of which it had notice (see, Fiege v State of New York, 189 AD2d 748 ) or that the placement of the barricades "evolved without adequate study or lacked [a] reasonable basis” (Weiss v Fote, 7 NY2d 579, 589 ; see, Cipriano v State of New York, 171 AD2d 169, 172 , lv denied 79 NY2d 756 ).

1994To prevail on this theory, claimant had the burden of proving that the State affirmatively created a dangerous condition of which it had notice (see, Fiege v State of New York, 189 AD2d 748 ) or that the placement of the barricades "evolved without adequate study or lacked [a] reasonable basis” (Weiss v Fote, 7 NY2d 579, 589 ; see, Cipriano v State of New York, 171 AD2d 169, 172 , lv denied 79 NY2d 756 ).

1989It is only at such point, therefore, that the use of the easement by another is deemed to be adverse to the owner and the prescriptive period begins to run (Powlowski v Mohawk Golf Club, 204 App Div, at 204 , supra).

1975The theory underlying that rule was that the swerve could just as likely have been caused by a defect in the automobile as by its negligent operation (Galbraith v Busch, 267 NY 230 ).

1975(Matter of Silver, 72 Misc 2d 963 .) The whole theory underlying the doctrine is similarity of economic interests.

1975However, the farfetched rationale of the Galbraith case was set aside and a rule more in keeping with common sense and reality was enunciated in Pfaffenbach v White Plains Express Corp. ( 17 NY2d 132 ).

1949It has been stated that “ Perhaps the most fundamental characteristic of Anglo-Saxon law as distinguished from other systems of jurisprudence is its deference to the principle of stare decisis, which may be defined as the obligation of courts to adhere to the results of decided cases and to refrain from disturbing general principles which have been established by judicial determination. [Citing cases.] The theory underlying' this principle is that ‘ certainty is of the very essence of the law. ’ 1 That shifting and changing rules or principles do not constitute law,’ and that ‘ The avoidance o

1939Pr. 188, 191 ; Matthews v. Matthews, 1 Edw.

1939(Matter of O’Donnell, 208 App. Div. 374, 384 ; revd., on other grounds, 240 N. Y. 99 ; Matter of Springer, 140 Misc. 57, 58, 59 .) The theory underlying this rule is that a statutory lien for debts, of which all alienees have notice, is impressed upon the real estate of a decedent for a period of eighteen months after the issuance of letters (Platt v. Platt, 105 N. Y. 488, 497 ; Eiffert v. Hummel, 140 Misc. 323, 326 ; Matter of Finlayson, Id. 140, 142; Matter of Rosenblatt, 167 id. 258, 260; Hall v. Partridge, 10 How.

1939(Matter of O’Donnell, 208 App. Div. 374, 384 ; revd., on other grounds, 240 N. Y. 99 ; Matter of Springer, 140 Misc. 57, 58, 59 .) The theory underlying this rule is that a statutory lien for debts, of which all alienees have notice, is impressed upon the real estate of a decedent for a period of eighteen months after the issuance of letters (Platt v. Platt, 105 N. Y. 488, 497 ; Eiffert v. Hummel, 140 Misc. 323, 326 ; Matter of Finlayson, Id. 140, 142; Matter of Rosenblatt, 167 id. 258, 260; Hall v. Partridge, 10 How.

1939(Matter of O’Donnell, 208 App. Div. 374, 384 ; revd., on other grounds, 240 N. Y. 99 ; Matter of Springer, 140 Misc. 57, 58, 59 .) The theory underlying this rule is that a statutory lien for debts, of which all alienees have notice, is impressed upon the real estate of a decedent for a period of eighteen months after the issuance of letters (Platt v. Platt, 105 N. Y. 488, 497 ; Eiffert v. Hummel, 140 Misc. 323, 326 ; Matter of Finlayson, Id. 140, 142; Matter of Rosenblatt, 167 id. 258, 260; Hall v. Partridge, 10 How.

1939(Matter of O’Donnell, 208 App. Div. 374, 384 ; revd., on other grounds, 240 N. Y. 99 ; Matter of Springer, 140 Misc. 57, 58, 59 .) The theory underlying this rule is that a statutory lien for debts, of which all alienees have notice, is impressed upon the real estate of a decedent for a period of eighteen months after the issuance of letters (Platt v. Platt, 105 N. Y. 488, 497 ; Eiffert v. Hummel, 140 Misc. 323, 326 ; Matter of Finlayson, Id. 140, 142; Matter of Rosenblatt, 167 id. 258, 260; Hall v. Partridge, 10 How.

1939(Matter of O’Donnell, 208 App. Div. 374, 384 ; revd., on other grounds, 240 N. Y. 99 ; Matter of Springer, 140 Misc. 57, 58, 59 .) The theory underlying this rule is that a statutory lien for debts, of which all alienees have notice, is impressed upon the real estate of a decedent for a period of eighteen months after the issuance of letters (Platt v. Platt, 105 N. Y. 488, 497 ; Eiffert v. Hummel, 140 Misc. 323, 326 ; Matter of Finlayson, Id. 140, 142; Matter of Rosenblatt, 167 id. 258, 260; Hall v. Partridge, 10 How.

1937St. 439, 440; 153 A. 739, 741 ; Diamond Plate Glass Co. v. Knote, 38 Ind. App. 20, 21 ; 77 N. E. 954, 955 ; City of Sedalia v. Donohue, 190 Mo. 407, 409 ; 89 S. W. 386, 388 ; Kearney v. Buttles, 1 Ohio St. 362 , 367; Newberry v. Trowbridge, 4 Mich. 391, 395 ; Calhoun Gold Min.

1937St. 439, 440; 153 A. 739, 741 ; Diamond Plate Glass Co. v. Knote, 38 Ind. App. 20, 21 ; 77 N. E. 954, 955 ; City of Sedalia v. Donohue, 190 Mo. 407, 409 ; 89 S. W. 386, 388 ; Kearney v. Buttles, 1 Ohio St. 362 , 367; Newberry v. Trowbridge, 4 Mich. 391, 395 ; Calhoun Gold Min.

1937Co., 65 App. Div. 493, 495 .) The theory underlying this principle is that “ certainty is of the very essence of the law.” “ That shifting and changing rules or principles do not constitute law,” and that “ The avoidance or prevention of litigation through the establishment of fixed and certain rules is a useful and beneficent effect of litigations had.” (Matter of Grifenhagen v. Ordway, 218 N. Y. 451, 458 .) Whereas the application of this principle has frequently been limited to the decisions of courts of last resort (Matter of Brolasky, 302 Penn.

1937St. 439, 440; 153 A. 739, 741 ; Diamond Plate Glass Co. v. Knote, 38 Ind. App. 20, 21 ; 77 N. E. 954, 955 ; City of Sedalia v. Donohue, 190 Mo. 407, 409 ; 89 S. W. 386, 388 ; Kearney v. Buttles, 1 Ohio St. 362 , 367; Newberry v. Trowbridge, 4 Mich. 391, 395 ; Calhoun Gold Min.

1937St. 439, 440; 153 A. 739, 741 ; Diamond Plate Glass Co. v. Knote, 38 Ind. App. 20, 21 ; 77 N. E. 954, 955 ; City of Sedalia v. Donohue, 190 Mo. 407, 409 ; 89 S. W. 386, 388 ; Kearney v. Buttles, 1 Ohio St. 362 , 367; Newberry v. Trowbridge, 4 Mich. 391, 395 ; Calhoun Gold Min.

1937St. 439, 440; 153 A. 739, 741 ; Diamond Plate Glass Co. v. Knote, 38 Ind. App. 20, 21 ; 77 N. E. 954, 955 ; City of Sedalia v. Donohue, 190 Mo. 407, 409 ; 89 S. W. 386, 388 ; Kearney v. Buttles, 1 Ohio St. 362 , 367; Newberry v. Trowbridge, 4 Mich. 391, 395 ; Calhoun Gold Min.

1937St. 439, 440; 153 A. 739, 741 ; Diamond Plate Glass Co. v. Knote, 38 Ind. App. 20, 21 ; 77 N. E. 954, 955 ; City of Sedalia v. Donohue, 190 Mo. 407, 409 ; 89 S. W. 386, 388 ; Kearney v. Buttles, 1 Ohio St. 362 , 367; Newberry v. Trowbridge, 4 Mich. 391, 395 ; Calhoun Gold Min.