green
Positive treatment
Trending · 107 recent citers
10.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 2009 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2009
2017
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 21 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
American Standard, Inc. v. OakFabco, Inc.
We granted leave to appeal ( 12 NY3d 712 *403 [2009]), and now affirm the Appellate Division’s declaration, but modify its order by vacating the injunction.
discussed
Cited "see"
Matter of Shannon E. K. v. Amir S.
We decline to review the issue, but as an alternative holding, find that pursuant to both Florida and New York law, the Support Magistrate properly terminated the travel credit to the father ( Chapoteau v Chapoteau , 659 So2d 1381, 1384 [Fla 3d DCA 1995]; see Matter of Yarinsky v Yarinsky , 36 AD3d 1135, 1138 [3d Dept 2007], lv denied 12 NY3d 712 [2009]).
cited
Cited "see"
Concord Associates, L.P. v. EPT Concord, LLC
Co., 70 NY2d 966, 968 [1988]; see Richard A. Hutchens CC, L.L.C. v State of New York, 59 AD3d 766, 770-771 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 712 [2009]).
cited
Cited "see"
Concord Associates, L.P. v. EPT Concord, LLC
Co., 70 NY2d 966, 968 [1988]; see Richard A. Hutchens CC, L.L.C. v State of New York, 59 AD3d 766, 770-771 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 712 [2009]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Joshua UU. v. Martha VV.
Although it is preferable that the court’s determination be made following an appropriate colloquy with the party on the record, it may also be made upon an examination of all the potential relevant circumstances” (Matter of Bombard v Bombard, 254 AD2d 529, 529-530 [1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 804 [1999] [citations omitted]; see Matter of Adams v Bracci, 61 AD3d 1065, 1066 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 712 [2009]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Joshua UU. v. Martha VV.
Although it is preferable that the court’s determination be made following an appropriate colloquy with the party on the record, it may also be made upon an examination of all the potential relevant circumstances” (Matter of Bombard v Bombard, 254 AD2d 529, 529-530 [1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 804 [1999] [citations omitted]; see Matter of Adams v Bracci, 61 AD3d 1065, 1066 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 712 [2009]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Johnston v. Kirkland
Here, the proceeding was commenced 63 days after service of the determination, and it is well settled that “[t]he provisions of CPLR 2103 (subd [c]) prescribing extensions of time where service on a party is made by mail do not apply to administrative proceedings” (Matter of Fiedelman v New York State Dept. of Health, 58 NY2d 80, 81 [1983]; see generally Matter of Lester v New York State Off. of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preserv., 60 AD3d 680, 681 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 712 [2009]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Johnston v. Kirkland
Here, the proceeding was commenced 63 days after service of the determination, and it is well settled that “[t]he provisions of CPLR 2103 (subd [c]) prescribing extensions of time where service on a party is made by mail do not apply to administrative proceedings” (Matter of Fiedelman v New York State Dept. of Health, 58 NY2d 80, 81 [1983]; see generally Matter of Lester v New York State Off. of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preserv., 60 AD3d 680, 681 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 712 [2009]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ken-Vil Associates Ltd. Partnership v. New York State Division of Human Rights
Such a proceeding “must be instituted within sixty days after the service of such order” (id.; see Matter of Lester v New York State Off. of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preserv., 60 AD3d 680, 681 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 712 [2009]; Matter of Gil v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 17 AD3d 365, 366 [2005]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ken-Vil Associates Ltd. Partnership v. New York State Division of Human Rights
Such a proceeding “must be instituted within sixty days after the service of such order” (id.; see Matter of Lester v New York State Off. of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preserv., 60 AD3d 680, 681 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 712 [2009]; Matter of Gil v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 17 AD3d 365, 366 [2005]).
discussed
Cited "see"
JOHNSTON, WILLIAM B. v. KIRKLAND, GALEN D.
Here, the proceeding was commenced 63 days after service of the determination, and it is well settled that “[t]he provisions of CPLR 2103 (subd [c]) prescribing extensions of time where service on a party is made by mail do not apply to administrative proceedings” (Matter of Fiedelman v New York State Dept. of Health, 58 NY2d 80, 81 ; see generally Matter of Lester v New York State Off. of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preserv., 60 AD3d 680, 681 , lv denied 12 NY3d 712 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
KEN-VIL ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERS v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN, RIGHTS
Such a proceeding “must be instituted within sixty days after the service of such order” (id.; see Matter of Lester v New York State Off. of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preserv., 60 AD3d 680, 681 , lv denied 12 NY3d 712 ; Matter of Gil v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 17 AD3d 365, 366 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
EDWARDS, ALVIN G., PEOPLE v
We have repeatedly concluded that a victim who is asleep during a sexual assault or “the beginning portion of the sexual assault” is physically helpless for the purposes of risk factor 6 (People v Vaughn, 26 AD3d 776, 777 ; see People v Cullen, 60 AD3d 1466 , lv denied 12 NY3d 712 ; People v Harris, 46 AD3d 1445, 1446 , lv denied 10 NY3d 707 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Edwards
We have repeatedly concluded that a victim who is asleep during a sexual assault or “the beginning portion of the sexual assault” is physically helpless for the purposes of risk factor 6 (People v Vaughn, 26 AD3d 776, 777 [2006]; see People v Cullen, 60 AD3d 1466 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 712 [2009]; People v Harris, 46 AD3d 1445 , 1446 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 707 [2008]).
discussed
Cited "see"
GREEN, SHAWN v. STATE OF NEW YORK
In determining whether the Court of Claims has subject matter jurisdiction over a claim, the initial question is “[w]hether the essential nature of the claim is to recover money, or whether the monetary relief is incidental to the primary claim” (Matter of Gross v Perales, 72 NY2d 231, 236 , rearg denied 72 NY2d 1042 ; see Buonanotte v -2- 1426 CA 11-00437 New York State Off. of Alcoholism & Substance Abuse Servs., 60 AD3d 1142, 1144 , lv denied 12 NY3d 712 ; Sarbro IX v State of N.Y.
discussed
Cited "see"
Green v. State
In determining whether the Court of Claims has subject matter jurisdiction over a claim, the initial question is “[w]hether the essential nature of the claim is to recover money, or whether the monetary relief is incidental to the primary claim” (Matter of Gross v Perales, 72 NY2d 231, 236 [1988], rearg denied 72 NY2d 1042 [1988]; see Buonanotte v New York State Off. of Alcoholism & Substance Abuse Servs., 60 AD3d 1142, 1144 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 712 [2009]; Sarbro IX v State of N.Y.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
DiBella v. DiBella
Accordingly, under the circumstances, we remit this matter to Supreme Court for a new trial on the issues of custody, visitation and child support ( see Matter of Grayson v Fenton , 8 AD3d at 696 ; Matter of Lee v Stark , 1 AD3d at 816 ; compare Matter of Adams v Bracci , 61 AD3d 1065, 1066 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 712 [2009]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
McFadden v. Fonda
Attorney’s Off., 111 AD3d 1123 , 1126 [2013]; Matter of Carnevale v City of Albany, 68 AD3d 1290, 1292 [2009]; compare Matter of Miller v New York State Dept. of Transp., 58 AD3d 981, 984 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 712 [2009]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
McFadden v. Fonda
Attorney’s Off., 111 AD3d 1123 , 1126 [2013]; Matter of Carnevale v City of Albany, 68 AD3d 1290, 1292 [2009]; compare Matter of Miller v New York State Dept. of Transp., 58 AD3d 981, 984 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 712 [2009]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kowatch v. Johnson
Once Family Court determined that “joint custody was not feasible, it was incumbent upon Family Court to determine a custodial arrangement based upon the best interests of the child[ren] despite the absence” of a petition definitively seeking sole custody (Matter of Scala v Parker, 304 AD2d 858, 860 [2003]), since the mother was clearly on notice that both legal and residential custody were at issue 1 (see Matter of Heintz v Heintz, 28 AD3d 1154, 1155 [2006]; see generally Matter of Albanese v Albanese, 44 AD3d 1117, 1119-1120 [2007]; compare Matter of Adams v Bracci, 61 AD3d 1065, 1067 [2…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ashley v. Worsell
While it is within Family Court’s discretion to award counsel fees if the relevant factors reveal that such an award is appropriate (see Family Ct Act § 438 [a]; Matter of Ana Luisa B. v Paul H.A., 59 AD3d 289, 290 [2009]; Matter of Baker v Baker, 291 AD2d 751, 754 [2002]; see also Matter of Yarinsky v Yarinsky, 59 AD3d 828, 830 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 712 [2009]), here, the mother failed to provide a factual basis establishing that the amount requested was reasonable.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
PEOPLE EX REL. MATOS
v.
WARDEN, RIKERS IS. CORRECTIONAL FACILITY.
v.
WARDEN, RIKERS IS. CORRECTIONAL FACILITY.
New York Court of Appeals.
Jun 4, 2009.
909 N.E.2d 1236
Published
Motion for leave to appeal denied.