8 New York opinions name it 4 courts 1894–2006 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Grand Realty Co. v. City of White Plainsgreen2 sentences2006(See, Grand Realty Co. v City of White Plains, 125 AD2d 639, 640 [2d Dept 1986]; see also, Landmark West! v City of New York, 9 Misc 3d 563 [2005]; NY Const, art VIII, § 1.) Under New York jurisprudence, it is impermissible for “the court to usurp the decision-making power vested in the Mayor and in the City.” (Creole Enters, v Giuliani, 167 Misc 2d 810, 820 [Sup Ct, NY County 1995].) Unless the City’s actions are illegal, fraudulent, or irrational, “the manner by which ... [a governing body] addresses complex societal and governmental issues is a subject left to the discretion of the legislat 2004In addition, the Town failed to establish as a matter of law that the easement is a gift in violation of NY Constitution, article VIII, § 1 (cf. Grand Realty Co. v City of White Plains, 125 AD2d 639, 639-640 ) [1986]. | 1 | 2 |
Landmark West! v. City of New Yorkgreen1 sentence2006(See, Grand Realty Co. v City of White Plains, 125 AD2d 639, 640 [2d Dept 1986]; see also, Landmark West! v City of New York, 9 Misc 3d 563 [2005]; NY Const, art VIII, § 1.) Under New York jurisprudence, it is impermissible for “the court to usurp the decision-making power vested in the Mayor and in the City.” (Creole Enters, v Giuliani, 167 Misc 2d 810, 820 [Sup Ct, NY County 1995].) Unless the City’s actions are illegal, fraudulent, or irrational, “the manner by which ... [a governing body] addresses complex societal and governmental issues is a subject left to the discretion of the legislat | 1 | 1 |
Creole Enterprises, Inc. v. Giulianigreen1 sentence2006(See, Grand Realty Co. v City of White Plains, 125 AD2d 639, 640 [2d Dept 1986]; see also, Landmark West! v City of New York, 9 Misc 3d 563 [2005]; NY Const, art VIII, § 1.) Under New York jurisprudence, it is impermissible for “the court to usurp the decision-making power vested in the Mayor and in the City.” (Creole Enters, v Giuliani, 167 Misc 2d 810, 820 [Sup Ct, NY County 1995].) Unless the City’s actions are illegal, fraudulent, or irrational, “the manner by which ... [a governing body] addresses complex societal and governmental issues is a subject left to the discretion of the legislat | 1 | 1 |
Hoyt v. County of Broomegreen1 sentence1996Therefore, under settled principles, these payments do not constitute a gift in violation of article VIII, § 1 (see, e.g., Matter of Antonopoulou v Beame, 32 NY2d 126, 131 [public moneys used to meet collective bargaining agreement obligations to officers and employees in the civil service are not an unconstitutional gift]; Board of Educ. v Associated Teachers, 30 NY2d 122, 128 [collective bargaining agreement to provide a salary increase to teachers in their final year of employment prior to retirement serves legitimate purpose of inducing experienced teachers to remain in service]; Hoyt v Co | 1 | 1 |
Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 3 of Huntington v. Associated Teachers of Huntington, Inc.green1 sentence1996Therefore, under settled principles, these payments do not constitute a gift in violation of article VIII, § 1 (see, e.g., Matter of Antonopoulou v Beame, 32 NY2d 126, 131 [public moneys used to meet collective bargaining agreement obligations to officers and employees in the civil service are not an unconstitutional gift]; Board of Educ. v Associated Teachers, 30 NY2d 122, 128 [collective bargaining agreement to provide a salary increase to teachers in their final year of employment prior to retirement serves legitimate purpose of inducing experienced teachers to remain in service]; Hoyt v Co | 1 | 1 |
Antonopoulou v. Beamegreen1 sentence1996Therefore, under settled principles, these payments do not constitute a gift in violation of article VIII, § 1 (see, e.g., Matter of Antonopoulou v Beame, 32 NY2d 126, 131 [public moneys used to meet collective bargaining agreement obligations to officers and employees in the civil service are not an unconstitutional gift]; Board of Educ. v Associated Teachers, 30 NY2d 122, 128 [collective bargaining agreement to provide a salary increase to teachers in their final year of employment prior to retirement serves legitimate purpose of inducing experienced teachers to remain in service]; Hoyt v Co | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Devitt v. Heimbach
neutral
1 sentence1986While it is true that the defendants were not required to sell the land at the highest marketable price, or even at fair market value (see, General Municipal Law § 507 [2] [d]), they were required to obtain substantial or valuable consideration in order for the transaction to constitute a bona fide sale and not a gift in violation of NY Constitution, article VIII, § 1 (see also, Matter of Ross v Wilson, 284 App Div 522, 530 , revd on other grounds 308 NY 605 ; Devitt v Heimbach, 109 Misc 2d 463 ). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Ross v. Wilson
neutral
1 sentence1986While it is true that the defendants were not required to sell the land at the highest marketable price, or even at fair market value (see, General Municipal Law § 507 [2] [d]), they were required to obtain substantial or valuable consideration in order for the transaction to constitute a bona fide sale and not a gift in violation of NY Constitution, article VIII, § 1 (see also, Matter of Ross v Wilson, 284 App Div 522, 530 , revd on other grounds 308 NY 605 ; Devitt v Heimbach, 109 Misc 2d 463 ). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Ross v. Wilson
green
1 sentence1986While it is true that the defendants were not required to sell the land at the highest marketable price, or even at fair market value (see, General Municipal Law § 507 [2] [d]), they were required to obtain substantial or valuable consideration in order for the transaction to constitute a bona fide sale and not a gift in violation of NY Constitution, article VIII, § 1 (see also, Matter of Ross v Wilson, 284 App Div 522, 530 , revd on other grounds 308 NY 605 ; Devitt v Heimbach, 109 Misc 2d 463 ). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Shapiro v. United States
green
1 sentence1978(See, e.g., Shapiro v United States, 335 US 1, 16 .) If the evidence sought by the People be not privileged, then the right to invoke the protective statutory immunity (of CPL 190.40, subd 2) disappears. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
People v. Steuding
green
1 sentence1978(See People v Steuding, 6 NY2d 214, 216-217 ; People v Laino, 10 NY2d 161, 171-173 ; Matter of Gold v Menna, 25 NY2d 475, 481 ; Matter of Anonymous Attorneys, 41 NY2d 506 , 507, 508-510; see, also, Immunity Statutes and the Constitution, 68 Col L Rev 959.) To put it simply, our immunity statutes were never intended to give a gift of immunity for nonprivileged evidence. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
People v. Laino
green
1 sentence1978(See People v Steuding, 6 NY2d 214, 216-217 ; People v Laino, 10 NY2d 161, 171-173 ; Matter of Gold v Menna, 25 NY2d 475, 481 ; Matter of Anonymous Attorneys, 41 NY2d 506 , 507, 508-510; see, also, Immunity Statutes and the Constitution, 68 Col L Rev 959.) To put it simply, our immunity statutes were never intended to give a gift of immunity for nonprivileged evidence. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Gold v. Menna
green
1 sentence1978(See People v Steuding, 6 NY2d 214, 216-217 ; People v Laino, 10 NY2d 161, 171-173 ; Matter of Gold v Menna, 25 NY2d 475, 481 ; Matter of Anonymous Attorneys, 41 NY2d 506 , 507, 508-510; see, also, Immunity Statutes and the Constitution, 68 Col L Rev 959.) To put it simply, our immunity statutes were never intended to give a gift of immunity for nonprivileged evidence. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Kinney v. McDermot
green
1 sentence1946His case, of necessity, then fell (Kinney v. McDermot, 55 Iowa 674 ), just as did plaintiff’s case in Marks v. Childs (June 19, 1944), Appellate Department, Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, cited in respondent’s brief. | 1 | 1946–1946 |
Bliven v. . Seymour
neutral
1 sentence1937Turning now to the basis of preference of dependency and absence of other provision for support, preferment on this ground has always been strictly conditioned on a demonstration of absence of such provision and dependency for support on the testamentary gift (Bliven v. Seymour, 88 N. Y. 469, 476 ; Matter of Wenner, 125 App. Div. 358, 359 ; affd., 193 N. Y. 672 ; Scofield v. Adams, 12 Hun, 366 , 370; Matter of Schaaf, 120 Misc. 292, 294 ; Matter of Hinman, 32 id. 536, 538; Matter of Carr, 24 id. 143, 146; Matter of McKay, 5 id. 123, 130; Matter of Smallman , 138 id. 889, 910 ; Matter of Rae, 1 | 1 | 1937–1937 |
In Re the Accounting of Wenner
neutral
1 sentence1937Turning now to the basis of preference of dependency and absence of other provision for support, preferment on this ground has always been strictly conditioned on a demonstration of absence of such provision and dependency for support on the testamentary gift (Bliven v. Seymour, 88 N. Y. 469, 476 ; Matter of Wenner, 125 App. Div. 358, 359 ; affd., 193 N. Y. 672 ; Scofield v. Adams, 12 Hun, 366 , 370; Matter of Schaaf, 120 Misc. 292, 294 ; Matter of Hinman, 32 id. 536, 538; Matter of Carr, 24 id. 143, 146; Matter of McKay, 5 id. 123, 130; Matter of Smallman , 138 id. 889, 910 ; Matter of Rae, 1 | 1 | 1937–1937 |
In re the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Armbruster
green
1 sentence1937Turning now to the basis of preference of dependency and absence of other provision for support, preferment on this ground has always been strictly conditioned on a demonstration of absence of such provision and dependency for support on the testamentary gift (Bliven v. Seymour, 88 N. Y. 469, 476 ; Matter of Wenner, 125 App. Div. 358, 359 ; affd., 193 N. Y. 672 ; Scofield v. Adams, 12 Hun, 366 , 370; Matter of Schaaf, 120 Misc. 292, 294 ; Matter of Hinman, 32 id. 536, 538; Matter of Carr, 24 id. 143, 146; Matter of McKay, 5 id. 123, 130; Matter of Smallman , 138 id. 889, 910 ; Matter of Rae, 1 | 1 | 1937–1937 |
In re the Final Judicial Settlement of the Account of Proceedings of Wenner
neutral
1 sentence1937Turning now to the basis of preference of dependency and absence of other provision for support, preferment on this ground has always been strictly conditioned on a demonstration of absence of such provision and dependency for support on the testamentary gift (Bliven v. Seymour, 88 N. Y. 469, 476 ; Matter of Wenner, 125 App. Div. 358, 359 ; affd., 193 N. Y. 672 ; Scofield v. Adams, 12 Hun, 366 , 370; Matter of Schaaf, 120 Misc. 292, 294 ; Matter of Hinman, 32 id. 536, 538; Matter of Carr, 24 id. 143, 146; Matter of McKay, 5 id. 123, 130; Matter of Smallman , 138 id. 889, 910 ; Matter of Rae, 1 | 1 | 1937–1937 |
Devlin v. . Greenwich Sav. Bank
neutral
1 sentence1894Before entering upon a discussion of this question it will be well to state the rule of evidence declared by the courts to be applicable to such cases. 'In this State the rule is that while there is no presumption of law or fact against a gift there is no presumption of law or fact in favor of one, and lie who claims title to property through a gift must establish it by evidence which is “ clear and convincing, strong and satisfactory.” (Devlin v. Greenwich Savings Bank, 125 N. Y. 756 ; S. C., 35 N. Y. | 1 | 1894–1894 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.