Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 New York opinions name it 1 courts 1998–2026 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Cooke v. Corning Hosp.green1 sentence2026Corp ., 239 AD3d 1341 , 1342-1343 [4th Dept 2025]; Leberman v Glick , 207 AD3d 1203, 1205 [4th Dept 2022]; Cooke v Corning Hosp ., 198 AD3d 1382, 1383-1384 [4th Dept 2021]). | 1 | 1 |
Leberman v. Glickgreen1 sentence2026Corp ., 239 AD3d 1341 , 1342-1343 [4th Dept 2025]; Leberman v Glick , 207 AD3d 1203, 1205 [4th Dept 2022]; Cooke v Corning Hosp ., 198 AD3d 1382, 1383-1384 [4th Dept 2021]). | 1 | 1 |
Charter One Bank, FSB v. Millsgreen1 sentence2026Having failed to meet her initial burden on the element of deviation, plaintiff's motion required denial without consideration of the sufficiency of defendants' opposition papers ( see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp ., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Gumkowski v Schwaab , 244 AD3d 1755 , 1757 [4th Dept 2025]; Sawyer v Kaleida Health , 112 AD3d 1341, 1341-1342 [4th Dept 2013]). | 1 | 1 |
Ciesinski v. Town of Auroragreen1 sentence2026To the extent that the Ahmed defendants contend that plaintiff's expert was not qualified to render an opinion, that contention is improperly raised for the first time on appeal ( see White v Bajwa , 161 AD3d 1513 , 1516 [4th Dept 2018]; see generally Ciesinski v Town of Aurora , 202 AD2d 984, 985 [4th Dept 1994]). | 1 | 1 |
READING, BRENDA v. FABIANO, M.D., ANDREWgreen1 sentence2026Here, contrary to plaintiff's contention on appeal, we conclude that plaintiff failed to meet her initial burden with respect to the Ahmed defendants and Snitzer inasmuch as plaintiff submitted the testimony of Ahmed and Snitzer, which raised issues of fact whether defendants deviated from the applicable standard of care ( see generally Giancarlo v Kurek , 160 AD3d 1368 , 1369 [4th Dept 2018]; Reading v Fabiano , 137 AD3d 1686, 1687 [4th Dept 2016]). | 1 | 1 |
Alvarez v. Prospect Hospitalgreen1 sentence2026Having failed to meet her initial burden on the element of deviation, plaintiff's motion required denial without consideration of the sufficiency of defendants' opposition papers ( see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp ., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Gumkowski v Schwaab , 244 AD3d 1755 , 1757 [4th Dept 2025]; Sawyer v Kaleida Health , 112 AD3d 1341, 1341-1342 [4th Dept 2013]). | 1 | 1 |
Sampson v. Contillogreen1 sentence2020Turning to the branches of the hospital defendants' motion which were with respect to the Mercy defendants, " [a]s a general rule, a hospital is not vicariously liable for the malpractice of a private attending physician who is not its employee'" ( Galluccio v Grossman , 161 AD3d 1049 , 1052, quoting Padula v Bucalo , 266 AD2d 524, 524 ; see Sampson v Contillo , 55 AD3d 588, 589 ). | 1 | 1 |
Rawlings v. National Car Rental System, Inc.green1 sentence2014The plaintiff set forth a sufficiently detailed and credible account of law office failure to explain its default in opposing Ahmed’s motion, and the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in accepting that explanation (see Rocco v Family Foot Ctr., 94 AD3d 1077 [2012]; Kohn v Kohn, 86 AD3d 630 [2011]; Simpson v Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc., 48 AD3d 389, 392 [2008]). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ivey v. Mbaidjol
green
1 sentence2022The plaintiff appeals. "'The requisite elements of proof in a medical malpractice action are a deviation or departure from accepted community standards of practice and evidence that such departure was a proximate cause of injury or damage'" ( Ivey v Mbaidjol , 202 AD3d 1070, 1071 , quoting Geffner v North Shore Univ. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Padula v. Bucalo
green
1 sentence2020Turning to the branches of the hospital defendants' motion which were with respect to the Mercy defendants, " [a]s a general rule, a hospital is not vicariously liable for the malpractice of a private attending physician who is not its employee'" ( Galluccio v Grossman , 161 AD3d 1049 , 1052, quoting Padula v Bucalo , 266 AD2d 524, 524 ; see Sampson v Contillo , 55 AD3d 588, 589 ). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Kohn v. Kohn
green
1 sentence2014The plaintiff set forth a sufficiently detailed and credible account of law office failure to explain its default in opposing Ahmed’s motion, and the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in accepting that explanation (see Rocco v Family Foot Ctr., 94 AD3d 1077 [2012]; Kohn v Kohn, 86 AD3d 630 [2011]; Simpson v Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc., 48 AD3d 389, 392 [2008]). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Diaz v. Chaudhry
neutral
2 sentences2014The plaintiff also demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious opposition to Ahmed’s motion for leave to reargue and renew (see Delvalle v Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, 117 AD3d 893 [2014]; Diaz v Chaudhry, 91 AD3d 590 [2012]). 2014The plaintiff also demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious opposition to Ahmed’s motion for leave to reargue and renew (see Delvalle v Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, 117 AD3d 893 [2014]; Diaz v Chaudhry, 91 AD3d 590 [2012]). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Rocco v. Family Foot Center
green
1 sentence2014The plaintiff set forth a sufficiently detailed and credible account of law office failure to explain its default in opposing Ahmed’s motion, and the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in accepting that explanation (see Rocco v Family Foot Ctr., 94 AD3d 1077 [2012]; Kohn v Kohn, 86 AD3d 630 [2011]; Simpson v Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc., 48 AD3d 389, 392 [2008]). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Russell
green
2 sentences2014Ahmed did not provide new facts or new law that would change the court’s prior determination to deny Ahmed’s motion to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale entered upon his lengthy default in appearing and answering (see CPLR 2221 [e] [3]; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Russell, 101 AD3d 860 [2012]). 2014Ahmed did not provide new facts or new law that would change the court’s prior determination to deny Ahmed’s motion to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale entered upon his lengthy default in appearing and answering (see CPLR 2221 [e] [3]; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Russell, 101 AD3d 860 [2012]). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Delvalle v. Mercedes Benz USA, LLC
green
2 sentences2014The plaintiff also demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious opposition to Ahmed’s motion for leave to reargue and renew (see Delvalle v Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, 117 AD3d 893 [2014]; Diaz v Chaudhry, 91 AD3d 590 [2012]). 2014The plaintiff also demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious opposition to Ahmed’s motion for leave to reargue and renew (see Delvalle v Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, 117 AD3d 893 [2014]; Diaz v Chaudhry, 91 AD3d 590 [2012]). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Chemical Bank v. PIC Motors Corp.
green
1 sentence1998Thus, there is no merit to Ahmed’s claim that he was discharged from liability by the bank’s release of its lien on the Staten Island lots which secured the guaranteed loan, or by the bank’s extension of the maturity date of the loan agreement (see, Indianapolis Morris Plan Corp. v Karlen, 28 NY2d 30, 34 ; Chemical Bank v PIC Motors Corp., 87 AD2d 447 , affd 58 NY2d 1023 ; Bank of N. Y. v CMS Funding, 201 AD2d 602 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Ashton v. Goldberg
green
1 sentence1998Thus, there is no merit to Ahmed’s claim that he was discharged from liability by the bank’s release of its lien on the Staten Island lots which secured the guaranteed loan, or by the bank’s extension of the maturity date of the loan agreement (see, Indianapolis Morris Plan Corp. v Karlen, 28 NY2d 30, 34 ; Chemical Bank v PIC Motors Corp., 87 AD2d 447 , affd 58 NY2d 1023 ; Bank of N. Y. v CMS Funding, 201 AD2d 602 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Indianapolis Morris Plan Corp. v. Karlen
green
1 sentence1998Thus, there is no merit to Ahmed’s claim that he was discharged from liability by the bank’s release of its lien on the Staten Island lots which secured the guaranteed loan, or by the bank’s extension of the maturity date of the loan agreement (see, Indianapolis Morris Plan Corp. v Karlen, 28 NY2d 30, 34 ; Chemical Bank v PIC Motors Corp., 87 AD2d 447 , affd 58 NY2d 1023 ; Bank of N. Y. v CMS Funding, 201 AD2d 602 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Chemical Bank v. PIC Motors Corp.
green
1 sentence1998Thus, there is no merit to Ahmed’s claim that he was discharged from liability by the bank’s release of its lien on the Staten Island lots which secured the guaranteed loan, or by the bank’s extension of the maturity date of the loan agreement (see, Indianapolis Morris Plan Corp. v Karlen, 28 NY2d 30, 34 ; Chemical Bank v PIC Motors Corp., 87 AD2d 447 , affd 58 NY2d 1023 ; Bank of N. Y. v CMS Funding, 201 AD2d 602 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.