green
Positive treatment
Trending · 135 recent citers
9.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Grant v. Temple
"A foster care agency cannot be held liable for injuries which result to a foster child due to the momentary inattention of a foster parent, where the actions of the foster parent were not acts that should have been foreseeable by the agency in the exercise of reasonable care" ( McCabe v Dutchess County , 72 AD3d at 151 [internal quotation marks, ellipsis, brackets and citations omitted]; see Moore v City of New York , 85 AD3d 623, 624 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 713 [2011]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Gutierrez v. City of New York
The City established its entitlement to summary judgment by presenting evidence that it did not cause or create the defect and had no prior written notice of the defect, and thus could not be held liable for the infant plaintiff's injury (Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201[c][2]; see Tucker v City of New York , 84 AD3d 640, 642 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 713 [2011]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Gutierrez v. City of New York
The City established its entitlement to summary judgment by presenting evidence that it did not cause or create the defect and had no prior written notice of the defect, and thus could not be held liable for the infant plaintiff's injury (Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201[c][2]; see Tucker v City of New York , 84 AD3d 640, 642 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 713 [2011]).
discussed
Cited "see"
H.M. v. City of New York
Auth., 78 AD3d 485, 490 [1st Dept 2010]; see Moore v City of New York , 85 AD3d 623, 624 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 713 [2011] ; Keizer v SCO Family of Servs., 120 AD3d 475, 476-477 [2d Dept 2014]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Matter of Betts v. Moore
Here, the mother alleged that she had specific employment advancement opportunities at [*2]her job in Monroe County, and "economic necessity . . . may present a particularly persuasive ground for permitting the proposed move" ( Tropea , 87 NY2d at 739 ; see Matter of Butler v Hess , 85 AD3d 1689, 1690 [4th Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 713 [2011]).
discussed
Cited "see"
WSA Group, PE-PC v. DKI Eng'g & Consulting USA PC
A three-year statute of limitations governs "action[s] to recover damages for malpractice, other than medical, dental or podiatric malpractice, regardless of whether the underlying theory is based in contract or tort" (CPLR 214 [6]; see City of Binghamton v Hawk Eng'g P.C. , 85 AD3d 1417, 1418 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 713 [2011] ).
discussed
Cited "see"
Anderson v. Allstate Ins. Co.
"Equitable estoppel is an extraordinary remedy which applies where a party is prevented from filing an action within the applicable statute of limitations due to his or her reasonable reliance on deception, fraud or misrepresentations by the other" ( Pulver v Dougherty , 58 AD3d 978, 979-980 [2009] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; accord City of Binghamton v Hawk Eng'g P.C. , 85 AD3d 1417, 1420 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 713 [2011]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Hlatky
However, this clause is designed “to avoid conflicts between [s]tates in adjudicating the same matters” (Matter of Luna v Dobson, 97 NY2d 178, 182 [2001] [emphasis added]; accord People v Arotin, 19 AD3d at 847 ) and “is not implicated where the issue decided by a court in [another] state is different from the issue being decided by a New York court” (Matter of Doe v O'Donnell, 86 AD3d 238, 243 [2011] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted], lv denied 17 NY3d 713 [2011]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Matter of Stephen G. v. Lara H.
“The primary concern in any custody matter is, of course, the best interests of the children and, to that end, Family Court must give due consideration to, among other things, each parent’s ability to furnish and maintain a suitable and stable home environment for the children, past performance, relative fitness, ability to guide and provide for the children’s overall well-being and willingness to foster a positive relationship between the children and the other parent” (Matter of Darrow v Darrow, 106 AD3d 1388, 1390 [2013] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; ac…
discussed
Cited "see"
Koch v. Koch
Among the factors to be considered are “maintaining stability for the child, the child’s wishes, the home environment with each parent, each parent’s past performance, relative fitness, ability to guide and provide for the child’s overall well-being, and the willingness of each parent to foster a relationship with the other parent” (Matter of Smith v Miller, 4 AD3d 697, 698 [2004]; accord Matter of Jolynn W. v Vincent X., 85 AD3d 1217, 1217 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 713 [2011]; see Matter of Keen v Stephens, 114 AD3d at 1030 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
MatterofKochvKoch
Among the factors to be considered are "maintaining stability for the child, the child's wishes, the home environment with each parent, each parent's past performance, relative fitness, ability to guide and provide for the child's overall well-being, and the willingness of each parent to foster a relationship with the other parent" (Matter of Smith v Miller, 4 AD3d 697, 698 [2004]; accord Matter of Jolynn W. v Vincent X., 85 AD3d 1217, 1217 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 713 [2011]; see Matter of Keen v Stephens, 114 AD3d at 1030 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
Koch v. Koch
Among the factors to be considered are “maintaining stability for the child, the child’s wishes, the home environment with each parent, each parent’s past performance, relative fitness, ability to guide and provide for the child’s overall well-being, and the willingness of each parent to foster a relationship with the other parent” (Matter of Smith v Miller, 4 AD3d 697, 698 [2004]; accord Matter of Jolynn W. v Vincent X., 85 AD3d 1217, 1217 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 713 [2011]; see Matter of Keen v Stephens, 114 AD3d at 1030 ).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Venus v. Brennan
Additionally, the mother has agreed to maintain a visitation schedule that will foster the child’s relationship with the father, to transport the child to and from Syracuse, and to pay any related transportation costs (see Parish A., 49 AD3d at 1323 ; see also Matter of Butler v Hess, 85 AD3d 1689, 1690-1691 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 713 [2011]; Matter of Scialdo v Cook, 53 AD3d 1090, 1092 [2008]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Venus v. Brennan
Additionally, the mother has agreed to maintain a visitation schedule that will foster the child’s relationship with the father, to transport the child to and from Syracuse, and to pay any related transportation costs (see Parish A., 49 AD3d at 1323 ; see also Matter of Butler v Hess, 85 AD3d 1689, 1690-1691 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 713 [2011]; Matter of Scialdo v Cook, 53 AD3d 1090, 1092 [2008]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
VENUS, MARIA M. v. BRENNAN, RYAN
Additionally, the mother has agreed to maintain a visitation schedule that will foster the child’s relationship with the father, to transport the child to and from Syracuse, and to pay any related transportation costs (see Parish A., 49 AD3d at 1323 ; see also Matter of Butler v Hess, 85 AD3d 1689 , 1690- 1691, lv denied 17 NY3d 713 ; Matter of Scialdo v Cook, 53 AD3d 1090, 1092 ).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re Cadence SS.
Given that petitioner retains—and by all expectations will continue to retain—full care and custody of Cadence as her mother, a termination petition against respon dent could and would not result in the child being freed for adoption, the very purpose of this parental termination statute (see Matter of Lucinda G., 122 Misc 2d 416, 422 [1983]; compare Matter of Alicia EE. [Adam FF.], 86 AD3d 663, 664 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 713 [2011]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re Cadence SS.
Given that petitioner retains—and by all expectations will continue to retain—full care and custody of Cadence as her mother, a termination petition against respon dent could and would not result in the child being freed for adoption, the very purpose of this parental termination statute (see Matter of Lucinda G., 122 Misc 2d 416, 422 [1983]; compare Matter of Alicia EE. [Adam FF.], 86 AD3d 663, 664 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 713 [2011]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
CITY OF BINGHAMTON
v.
HAWK ENG'G, P.C.
v.
HAWK ENG'G, P.C.
Motion No: 2011-874.
New York Court of Appeals.
Oct 20, 2011.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Motion for leave to appeal denied.