How cited: Apple Mortgage Corp. v. Barenblatt · Go Syfert

Apple Mortgage Corp. v. Barenblatt (2016)

green · 36 citation events across 5 courts. Showing the 26 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
All Green 26
Treatment trajectory · 2016 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
201620212026
Sort: By significance · Most recent
green BCRS1 LLC v. Unger (2021)
Rule Authority · E.D.N.Y · 3 citations in this opinion
Corp. v. Barenblatt, 162 F. Supp. 3d 270, 284 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (quoting another source).
quoting another source
green Gatto v. Fujitec America, Inc. (2024)
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y. · 2 citations in this opinion
Corp. v. Barenblatt, 162 F. Supp. 3d 270, 291 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (quoting Bravia Cap.
quoting Bravia Cap. Partners, Inc. v. Fike, 09 Civ. 6375 (JFK), 2011 WL 6081345 , at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2011) (collecting cases)
green Zap Cellular, Inc. v. Weintraub (2022)
Rule Authority · E.D.N.Y · 2 citations in this opinion
Mar. 8, 2018) (collecting cases); Apple Mortgage Corp. v. Barenblatt, 162 F. Supp. 3d 270, 287 (S.D.N.Y. 2016); Amphenol Corp. v. Paul, 993 F. Supp. 2d 100, 110 (D.
green Kelco Construction, Inc. v. Spray in Place Solutions, LLC (2019)
Rule Authority · E.D.N.Y · 2 citations in this opinion
Corp. v. Barenblatt, 162 F. Supp. 3d 270, 283 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).
green Fischkoff v. Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc. (2018)
Quote Authority · S.D. Ill. · 2 citations in this opinion
Corp. , 162 F.Supp.3d at 286 ("If an employer has given an employee access to the computer and to the relevant files, the employee's subsequent misuse of the information or misappropriation with the intent to compete with his employer is not sufficient to violate the CFAA.").
"If an employer has given an employee access to the computer and to the relevant files, the employee's subsequent misuse of the information or misappropriation with the intent to compete with his employer is not sufficient to violate the CFAA."
green Beedemariam Kassaw v. Wal-Mart Corporation (2026)
Quote Authority · W.D.N.Y. · signal: see
See Apple Mortgage Corp. v. Barenblatt, 162 F. Supp. 3d 270, 292 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (“Because the bonuses were discretionary, the bonuses do not fall within the meaning of wages under New York Labor Law § 190(1)”).
“Because the bonuses were discretionary, the bonuses do not fall within the meaning of wages under New York Labor Law § 190(1)”
green Prysm Group, LLC v. Emeritus Institute of Management PTE LTD (2025)
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Corp. v. Barenblatt, 162 F. Supp. 3d 270, 284 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (citation omitted), and the defendant must have “exclude[d] the owner from exercising her rights over the goods.” Fischkoff v. Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc., 339 F. Supp. 3d 408, 414 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (quoting New York v. Seventh Regiment Fund, Inc., 774 N.E.2d 702, 711 (N.Y. 2002)).
citation omitted
green Zebra Strategies Inc. v. Gonzalez- Nazario (2025)
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Corp. v. Barenblatt, 162 F. Supp. 3d 270, 284 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).
green LAmore Consulting,LLC v. SBS Services, Inc. (2024)
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Corp. v. Barenblatt, 162 F.Supp.3d 270, 281 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).1 “The ‘unambiguous provisions’ of a contract ‘must be given their plain and ordinary meaning.’” Roberts v. Weight Watchers Int'l, Inc., 217 F. Supp. 3d 742, 749 (S.D.N.Y. 2016), aff'd, 712 F. App'x 57 (2d Cir. 2017) (quoting White v. Cont'l Cas.
green SAG Harbor Advisors Inc. v. Smart City Capital LLC (2024)
Rule Authority · E.D.N.Y
Corp. v. Barenblatt, 162 F. Supp. 3d 270, 289 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (finding that employee not entitled to a commission that closed post-termination); Bravia Cap.
finding that employee not entitled to a commission that closed post-termination
green Skyline Risk Management, Inc. v. Legakis (2024)
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Corp. v. Barenblatt, 162 F. Supp. 3d 270, 284 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).
green Rhee v. Sante Ventures (2023)
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Corp. v. Barenblatt, 162 F. Supp. 3d 270, 289 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (“[I]t is a well-settled principle of New York law that an at-will employee will be entitled to post-discharge commissions only if the employment agreement expressly provides for such compensation.” (quoting Bravia Capital Partners, Inc. v. Fike, 2011 WL 6081345 , at *3 (S.D.N.Y.
green Redcell Corp. v. A.J. Trucco, Inc. (2022)
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Thus, if Redcell was granted access to the server and information stored on it for software maintenance, “subsequent misuse of the information [for other purposes] . . . is not sufficient to violate the CFAA.” Apple Mortgage Corp. v. Barenblatt, 162 F. Supp. 3d 270, 286 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).
green Barker v. The Bancorp, Inc. (2022)
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Corp. v. Barenblatt, 162 F. Supp. 3d 270, 291 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (concluding that employer had absolute discretion where employees (i) became “eligible” for bonuses if they fulfilled certain conditions and (ii) acknowledged in depositions that that their employment contracts did not impose a duty to pay bonuses); Cohen v. Avanade, Inc., 874 F. Supp. 2d 315, 321 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (concluding that employer had absolute discretion where a compensation plan stated that employer could…
concluding that employer had absolute discretion where employees (i) became “eligible” for bonuses if they fulfilled certain conditions and (ii) acknowledged in depositions that that their employment contracts did not impose a duty to pay bonuses
green Executive Trim Construction Inc. v. Gross (2021)
Quote Authority · N.D.N.Y.
Corp. v. Barenblatt, 162 F. Supp. 3d 270, 286 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) ("If an employer has given an employee access to the computer and to the relevant files, the employee's subsequent misuse of the information or misappropriation with the intent to compete with his employer is not sufficient to violate the CFAA").
"If an employer has given an employee access to the computer and to the relevant files, the employee's subsequent misuse of the information or misappropriation with the intent to compete with his employer is not sufficient to violate the CFAA"
green Gogo Apparel, Inc v. True Destiny, LLC (2020)
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Corp. v. Barenblatt, 162 F. Supp. 3d 270, 284 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (quoting Barbagallo v. Marcum LLP, 820 F.Supp.2d 429, 446 (E.D.N.Y.2011)).
quoting Barbagallo v. Marcum LLP, 820 F.Supp.2d 429, 446 (E.D.N.Y.2011)
green Executive Trim Construction Inc. v. Gross (2020)
Quote Authority · N.D.N.Y.
Corp. v. Barenblatt, 162 F. Supp. 3d 270, 286 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) ("If an employer has given an employee access to the computer and to the relevant files, the employee's subsequent misuse of the information or misappropriation with the intent to compete with his employer is not sufficient to violate the CFAA").
"If an employer has given an employee access to the computer and to the relevant files, the employee's subsequent misuse of the information or misappropriation with the intent to compete with his employer is not sufficient to violate the CFAA"
green Capricorn Management Systems, Inc. v. Government Employees Insurance Co. (2020)
Rule Authority · E.D.N.Y
Corp. v. Barenblatt, 162 F.Supp.3d 270, 284 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).
green DCR Marketing Inc. v. Pereira (2020)
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Corp. v. Barenblatt, 162 F. Supp. 3d 270, 286 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).
green Longhi v. Lombard Risk Systems, Inc. (2019)
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Corp. v. Barenblatt, 162 F. Supp. 3d 270, 291 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (finding that bonuses were discretionary where employees became “eligible” for bonuses if they fulfilled certain conditions and acknowledged in depositions that that their employment contracts did not impose a duty to pay bonuses); Cohen v. Avanade, Inc., 874 F. Supp. 2d 315, 321 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (finding a bonus discretionary where a compensation plan stated that employer could “interpret and apply the [compensati…
finding that bonuses were discretionary where employees became “eligible” for bonuses if they fulfilled certain conditions and acknowledged in depositions that that their employment contracts did not impose a duty to pay bonuses
green Leary v. Al-Mubaraki (2019)
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
For example, in Apple Mortgage Corp. v. Barrenblatt, the court denied summary judgment where there remained a question as to whether the parties separately and explicitly agreed to be bound by a particular provision of the employee handbook. 162 F. Supp. 3d 270, 285 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).
green Hosain-Bhuiyan v. Barr Laboratories, Inc. (2019)
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Corp. v. Barenblatt, 162 F. Supp. 3d 270, 292 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).
green Lee v. Kylin Management LLC (2019)
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Corp. v. Barenblatt, 162 F. Supp. 3d 270, 289 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted).
internal quotation marks omitted
green Law Firm of Omar T. Mohammedi, LLC v. Computer Assisted Practice Electronic Management Solutions (2019)
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Corp. v. Barenblatt, 162 F. Supp. 3d 270, 286 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (“If an employer has given an employee 14 B.
“If an employer has given an employee 14 B. State Law Claims Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (c)(3
green ExpertConnect, L.L.C. v. Fowler (2019)
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Corp. v. Barenblatt, 162 F. Supp. 3d 270, 283 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (denying summary judgment on breach of duty of loyalty claim when defendants “copied files [containing confidential information] and sent files and contact information externally from their Apple computers to personal email addresses . . . while still employed at Apple”).
denying summary judgment on breach of duty of loyalty claim when defendants “copied files [containing confidential information] and sent files and contact information externally from their Apple computers to personal email addresses . . . while still employed at Apple”
green Roberts v. Weight Watchers International, Inc. (2016)
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Corp. v. Barenblatt, 162 F.Supp.3d 270, 281 (S.D.N.Y. 2016). 3 The “unambiguous provisions” of a contract “must be given their plain and ordinary meaning.” White v. Cont’l Cas.