green
Positive treatment
16.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Emigrant Bank v. Rosabianca
(4×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Thus, when faced with such a situation, the Court of Appeals reversed the Second Department and held that "it was error for the Appellate Division to hold, as a matter of law, that the bank was under no duty to investigate the circumstances surrounding the mortgage . . . [since that] issue, involving inferences to be drawn from evidentiary proof," should not be determined on a motion to dismiss ( Collision Plan Unlimited v Bankers Trust Co. , 63 NY2d 827, 830 [1984]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Weiss v. Hager
The stated returns on the investment offered to him, 300% in one week with zero risk, were so extraordinary as to be unbelievable, triggering the duty of reasonable inquiry into Hager’s actual authority (see Collision Plan Unlimited v Bankers Trust Co., 63 NY2d 827, 830-831 [1984]; ER Holdings, LLC v 122 W.P.R.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ferrarella v. Godt
The plaintiff also contends that the purchaser’s reliance on Godt’s apparent authority to execute the April asset sale agreement on her behalf using a power of attorney was unreasonable (see Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 231 [1984] [“a third party with whom the agent deals may rely on an appearance of authority only to the extent that such reliance is reasonable”]; Collision Plan Unlimited v Bankers Trust Co., 63 NY2d 827, 831 [1984] [a party who invokes the doctrine of apparent authority assumes a duty of reasonable inquiry]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Oliveto Holdings, Inc. v. Rattenni
Corp., 210 AD2d 981, 982 [1994]; cf. Collision Plan Unlimited v Bankers Trust Co., 63 NY2d 827, 831 [1984]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Oliveto Holdings, Inc. v. Rattenni
Corp., 210 AD2d 981, 982 [1994]; cf. Collision Plan Unlimited v Bankers Trust Co., 63 NY2d 827, 831 [1984]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Elgin Realty, Inc. v. Klein
Fin. v National Reserve Bank, 98 NY2d at 245 ; Collision Plan Unlimited v Bankers Trust Co., 63 NY2d 827, 830 [1984]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Elgin Realty, Inc. v. Klein
Fin. v National Reserve Bank, 98 NY2d at 245 ; Collision Plan Unlimited v Bankers Trust Co., 63 NY2d 827, 830 [1984]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bibbo v. 31-30, LLC
Moreover, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss the slander of title cause of action, since the documentary evidence demonstrates that the plaintiff received the title he contracted for, and he further failed to allege special damages with sufficient particularity (see Collision Plan Unlimited v Bankers Trust Co., 63 NY2d 827, 831 [1984]; Drug Research Corp. v Curtis Publ.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bibbo v. 31-30, LLC
Moreover, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss the slander of title cause of action, since the documentary evidence demonstrates that the plaintiff received the title he contracted for, and he further failed to allege special damages with sufficient particularity (see Collision Plan Unlimited v Bankers Trust Co., 63 NY2d 827, 831 [1984]; Drug Research Corp. v Curtis Publ.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pino v. Harnischfeger
In addition, they sought to strike Harnischfeger’s request for punitive damages, asserted in the wherefore clause but also erroneously asserted as a counterclaim (see Collision Plan Unlimited v Bankers Trust Co., 63 NY2d 827, 831 [1984], rearg denied 64 NY2d 755 [1984]), and they sought summary judgment dismissing Harnischfeger’s remaining counterclaims.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ltown Ltd. Partnership v. Sire Plan, Inc.
The exception, which may be applied to counsel as well as to litigants (Roadway Express v Piper, 447 US 752, 756 ; Nelson v Piedmont Aviation, 750 F2d 1234, 1238), is “unquestionably [an] assertion * * * of inherent power in the courts to allow attorneys’ fees in particular situations, unless [expressly] forbidden by [statute]” (Alyeska Pipeline Co. v Wilderness Socy., 421 US 240, 259 ; cf. Collision Plan Unlimited v Bankers Trust Co., 63 NY2d 827, 831 [apparently recognizing this exception as the court dismissed a cause of action seeking recovery of attorneys’ fees because there was �…
discussed
Cited "see"
Chaney v. Dreyfus Service Corp.
See Collision Plan Unlimited, Inc. v. Bankers Trust Co., 63 N.Y.2d 827 , 482 N.Y.S.2d 252 , 472 N.E.2d *237 28, 29 (1984) (finding that a duty to inquire into actual authority may arise where a third party relies on apparent authority for “extraordinary” transactions).
discussed
Cited "see"
39 College Point Corp. v. Transpac Capital Corp.
Here, the plaintiff sought to interpose a new cause of action alleging the tort of slander of title, the elements of which are “(1) a communication falsely casting doubt on the validity of [the] complainant’s title, (2) reasonably calculated to cause harm, and (3) resulting in special damages” (Brown v Bethlehem Terrace Assoc., 136 AD2d 222, 224 [1988]; see Collision Plan Unlimited v Bankers Trust Co., 63 NY2d 827, 831 [1984]; cf. Fink v Shawangunk Conservancy, Inc., 15 AD3d 754, 756 [2005]; Hanbidge v Hunt, 183 AD2d 700, 701 [1992]; Carnival Co. v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 23 AD2d 75, 77 [19…
discussed
Cited "see"
Medical Malpractice Insurance v. District 65—UAW
At the very least, a triable issue of fact is raised as to whether the Pension Fund and the Credit Union ever cloaked the Dental Center administrator with authority to bind them under such a policy (Ford v Unity Hosp., 32 NY2d 464, 472-473 ; Legal Aid Socy. v Economic Opportunity Commn., 132 AD2d 113 ; see, Collision Plan Unlimited v Bankers Trust Co., 63 NY2d 827 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
Celi v. Canadian Occidental Petroleum Ltd.
(2×)
See Goldberg v. Sitomer, Sitomer & Porges, et. al., 97 A.D.2d 114 , 469 N.Y.S.2d 81, 82 (App.Div.1983), aff'd, 63 N.Y.2d 831 , 482 N.Y.S.2d 268 , 472 N.E.2d 44 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Mtr. of Knox (Columbia Banking)
Co. v Adoue , 104 Tex 379, 138 SW 383 ; Dollar Sav. & Trust Co. v Crawford , 69 W Va 109, 70 SE 1089 ; see , 5A Michie, Banks and Banking § 208.) A bank is under a duty of reasonable inquiry as to a representative's actual perimeter of authority when a fiduciary or other seeks to invoke apparent authority. ( Collision Plan Unlimited v Bankers Trust Co. , 63 N.Y.2d 827, 830 .) By failing to conduct a simple inquiry as to the terms of the letters *447 of guardianship, when on notice of a fiduciary relationship and of an issue as to apparent authority, the bank never determined whether the signa…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Robert Goldman v. Stephen Barrett
Cos., 292 A.D.2d 67, 76 (4th Dep’t 2002)); see also Goldberg v. Sitomar, Sitomar & Proges, 482 N.Y.S.2d 268 (N.Y. 1984)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
C.E. Towers Co. v. Trinidad & Tobago (BWIA International) Airways Corp.
See e.g., Collision Plan Unlimited Inc. v. Bankers Trust Co., 63 N.Y.2d 827, 830 , 482 N.Y.S.2d 252, 253 , 472 N.E.2d 28, 29 (1984) (the court explained that “the mortgage arrangement should have triggered the duty of reasonable inquiry since a gratuitous guarantee by a corporation of a debt of an unrelated corporation is extraordinary”); Whitney v. Citibank N.A., 782 F.2d 1106, 1115-1116 (2d Cir.1986) (absent awareness of facts indicating that an agent is acting beyond his real or apparent authority, a third party is not obligated to investigate the matter further or search for some limit…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bobal v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
(2×)
See, e.g., Goldberg v. Sitomer, Sitomer & Porges, 97 A.D.2d 114 , 469 N.Y.S.2d 81 (1st Dep't 1983), aff'd, 63 N.Y.2d 831 , 482 N.Y.S.2d 268 , 472 N.E.2d 44 cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1028 , 105 S.Ct. 1395 , 84 L.Ed.2d 784 (1985). 14 Finally, her civil rights claim cannot withstand scrutiny as pleaded.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bobal v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
(2×)
See, e.g., Goldberg v. Sitomer, Sitomer & Porges, 97 A.D.2d 114 , 469 N.Y.S.2d 81 (1st Dep’t 1983), aff'd, 63 N.Y.2d 831 , 482 N.Y.S.2d 268 , 472 N.E.2d 44 cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1028 , 105 S.Ct. 1395 , 84 L.Ed.2d 784 (1985).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Charles Joseph, Appellant-Respondent
v.
Anthony Ruffo, as Broome County Sheriff
v.
Anthony Ruffo, as Broome County Sheriff
New York Court of Appeals.
Oct 9, 1984.
472 N.E.2d 44
Published
Motion for leave to appeal denied upon the ground that an appeal lies as of right (CPLR 5601, subd [a], par [iii]; subd [d]). Motion for leave to cross-appeal denied.