referred rule in New York

2020We note that the better approach is to use the Model Colloquy, which "neatly synthesizes . . . the governing principles and provides a solid reference for a better practice" ( People v Thomas , 34 NY3d 545 , 567 [2019], cert denied — US — 140 S Ct 2634 [2020], citing NY Model Colloquies, Waiver of Right to Appeal).

1966In the case ( 344 F. 2d 142 , 146) the court referred to the principle stated in the United States v. General Motors Corp. decision ( 323 U. S. 373 ) of the Supreme Court of the United States that compensation was to be give n ‘ ‘ for fixtures and permanent equipment destroyed or depreciated in value ’ ”, since the Government destroys the value of the fixtures by taking in condemnation.

1966In the case ( 344 F. 2d 142 , 146) the court referred to the principle stated in the United States v. General Motors Corp. decision ( 323 U. S. 373 ) of the Supreme Court of the United States that compensation was to be give n ‘ ‘ for fixtures and permanent equipment destroyed or depreciated in value ’ ”, since the Government destroys the value of the fixtures by taking in condemnation.

1948In the Rockland case (supra, p. 51) the court referred to rule 213 of the Buies of Civil Practice and added that the discretionary and extraordinary power of the court can properly be invoked “ only where resort to ordinary actions or proceedings would not afford adequate relief.” This complaint wholly fails to show that and, if in some cases a declaration may be made though a remedy is provided by another form of action, that is only where a genuine controversy is shown factually to exist and the parties cannot determine definitely the nature which the litigation should assume (Woollard v. Sc

1939Rowell v. Janvrin ( 151 N. Y. 60 ) involved a statute providing that stockholders of a corporation should be severally liable to creditors to an amount equal to the amount of stock held by them.

1937(Ehrich v. Guaranty Trust Co., 194 App. Div. 658 ; Knox v. Eden Musee Co., 148 N. Y. 441 .) ” The complaint in each count states that the immediate cause of the injuries resulting in death of plaintiff’s intestate was a fall from a ladder connected with a chimney on the premises.

1937(Ehrich v. Guaranty Trust Co., 194 App. Div. 658 ; Knox v. Eden Musee Co., 148 N. Y. 441 .) ” The complaint in each count states that the immediate cause of the injuries resulting in death of plaintiff’s intestate was a fall from a ladder connected with a chimney on the premises.

1933Since both defendants here are charged as principals, under the authority of People v. Giro ( 197 N. Y. 152, at p. 158 ), a shot fired by either is the act of both, whether their minds met in the act of shooting or not, provided they met in the act of committing the crime. “ That fundamental fact carried with it the heavy responsibility which the law places upon all who are acting together in the commission of a felony, when one of their number kills an outsider even by shooting to frighten and not to take life.” In People v. Becker ( 215 N. Y. 126,148 ) the court referred to the rule explicit

1933Since both defendants here are charged as principals, under the authority of People v. Giro ( 197 N. Y. 152, at p. 158 ), a shot fired by either is the act of both, whether their minds met in the act of shooting or not, provided they met in the act of committing the crime. “ That fundamental fact carried with it the heavy responsibility which the law places upon all who are acting together in the commission of a felony, when one of their number kills an outsider even by shooting to frighten and not to take life.” In People v. Becker ( 215 N. Y. 126,148 ) the court referred to the rule explicit

1933In Allen v. Fox ( 51 N. Y. 562 ) the court referred to a rule of damages which worked out that result.

1933Since both defendants here are charged as principals, under the authority of People v. Giro ( 197 N. Y. 152, at p. 158 ), a shot fired by either is the act of both, whether their minds met in the act of shooting or not, provided they met in the act of committing the crime. “ That fundamental fact carried with it the heavy responsibility which the law places upon all who are acting together in the commission of a felony, when one of their number kills an outsider even by shooting to frighten and not to take life.” In People v. Becker ( 215 N. Y. 126,148 ) the court referred to the rule explicit

1925In the case of McCall Co. v. Wright ( 198 N. Y. 143 ), which was an action for an injunction to restrain an employee from associating with a rival company, the court referred to the rule permitting an injunction against one who has sold a business under an agreement not to engage in a similar business in competition therewith, and said: “ It would seem that there is no fundamental principle in favor of the validity and enforceability of such an agreement in the case of the sale of a business which would not sus lain a contract on a good consideration prohibiting for a limited period an employe

1889In McCollum v. Seward ( 62 N.Y. 316 ), and Mercer v. Vose ( 67 N.Y. 56 ), the actions were to recover the amount due for services upon a quantum meruit .

1889In McCollum v. Seward ( 62 N.Y. 316 ), and Mercer v. Vose ( 67 N.Y. 56 ), the actions were to recover the amount due for services upon a quantum meruit .