Caulfield v. Improved Risk Mutuals, Inc., 488 N.E.2d 833 (N.Y. 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
Caulfield v. Improved Risk Mutuals, Inc., 488 N.E.2d 833 (N.Y. 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“it is not for this court to second-guess whether a course chosen by defendant's counsel was the best trial strategy, or even a good one, so long as defendant was afforded meaningful representation.”
22 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Young v. McGinnis (nyed, 2006-02-01)
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Young v. McGinnis
E.D.N.Y · 2006 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
it is not for this court to second-guess whether a course chosen by defendant's counsel was the best trial strategy, or even a good one, so long as defendant was afforded meaningful representation.
discussed Cited "see" Xui v. Iron City Properties, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
“When a deed is delivered to be held in escrow, the actual transfer of the property does not occur until the condition of the escrow is satisfied and the deed is subsequently delivered to the grantee by the escrow agent” (Scartozzi v Scartozzi, 50 AD3d 662, 663 [2008]; see Caulfield v Improved Risk Muts., 66 NY2d 793 [1985]; McLoughlin v Mc-Loughlin, 237 AD2d 336, 337 [1997]).
cited Cited "see" Rice v. Kuhlmann
E.D.N.Y · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See People v. Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796, 799-800 , 497 N.Y.S.2d 903 , 488 N.E.2d 834 (1985).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Mizuna, Ltd. v. Crossland Federal Savings Bank, AKA Crossland Savings Fsb, Royal Realty Co., a Partnership (3×)
2d Cir. · 1996 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Caulfield v. Improved Risk Mutuals, Inc., 107 A.D.2d 1013, 1014 , 486 N.Y.S.2d 531, 533 (4th Dep’t), rev’d on other grounds, 66 N.Y.2d 793 , 488 N.E.2d 833 , 497 N.Y.S.2d 903 (1985); Hickland v. Hickland, 46 A.D.2d 1, 7 , 360 N.Y.S.2d 715, 721 (3d Dep’t 1974).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Harry Caulfield Et Al., Plaintiffs,
v.
Improved Risk Mutuals, Inc., Et Al., Respondents, and Hanover Insurance Company Et Al., Appellants
New York Court of Appeals.
Nov 12, 1985.
488 N.E.2d 833
1985 N.Y. LEXIS 17930
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Eileen E. Buholtz for appellants., Ellen Lefkowitz for respondents.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 62%
Citer courts: E.D. New York (1)

OPINION OF THE COURT

Order reversed, with costs, and judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, reinstated for the reasons stated in the dissenting memorandum of Justice Stewart F. Hancock, Jr., at the Appellate Division (107 AD2d 1013, 1014-1015). We agree with the dissent below that, based upon the specific provisions of the contract and the amendments made thereto, the risk of loss passed to the purchasers upon the date of the escrow closing.

[*796] Concur: Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Kaye and Alexander. Judge Titone dissents and votes to affirm for the reasons stated in the memorandum of the Appellate Division (107 AD2d 1013). Taking no part: Judge Simons.