case involves claim in New York

2015The underlying facts are set forth in more detail in our recent decision involving an earlier appeal ( 118 AD3d 1092 [2014]).

2010The New York State case most closely on point is the Appellate Division’s well-reasoned decision in Mitchell v Barrios-Paoli ( 253 AD2d 281 [1st Dept 1999]).

2006As noted in an earlier decision of this Court ( 19 AD3d 859 [2005]), this case involves a claim by plaintiff William S. Kenney (hereinafter plaintiff) that his landlord, defendant Eddygate Park Associates (hereinafter defendant), breached their written lease agreement by unreasonably refusing to consent to an assignment of the lease.

2000Initially, we reject the plaintiffs’ argument that this case involves an inquiry to clarify the jury verdict before the jury was discharged (see, Sharrow v Dick Corp., 86 NY2d 54 ).

1997Under the circumstances of this case, and upon consideration of the factors in Matter of Town of Huntington v New York State Div. of Human Rights (supra) as set forth above, we agree that the petitioner may properly utilize this proceeding in the nature of prohibition to assert her claim of immunity from prosecution.

1997In Matter of Rush v Mordue ( 68 NY2d 348 , supra) and Matter of Brockway v Monroe ( 59 NY2d 179 ), the Court of Appeals recognized that prohibition would lie where the case involves a claim that a prosecution is improper because it is barred by immunity.

1997In Matter of Rush v Mordue ( 68 NY2d 348 , supra) and Matter of Brockway v Monroe ( 59 NY2d 179 ), the Court of Appeals recognized that prohibition would lie where the case involves a claim that a prosecution is improper because it is barred by immunity.

1985The exact nature of the heart’s condition is in controversy and hence, as this is a motion for summary judgment must be viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff (Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493 [1978]).

1940We do not consider that the case involves the doctrine discussed in Gochee v. Wagner ( 257 N. Y. 344 ).

1918The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and the defendant moved for a new trial on the minutes. “ The general rule established by the weight of authority in the United States and England is that accompanying all sales by a retail dealer of articles of food for immediate use there is an implied warranty that the same is fit for human consumption.” Race v. Krum, 222 N. Y. 410, 414 , and cases cited.