5 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2012 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gray v. Canisius Collegegreen1 sentence2012Notwithstanding the allegations in the complaint that the PBA breached an implied contract and that the loss of a life insurance policy constitutes a contractual right which was breached by Dormer’s expulsion from the PBA, the gravamen of the complaint concerns the conduct of a not-for-profit corporation whose allegedly illegal and improper actions in expelling two members are properly reviewable under CPLR article 78 (see CPLR art 78; Connors, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3001:18; State Div. of Human Rights v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 90 | 1 | 1 |
In re Weidenfeld against Kepplergreen1 sentence2012Notwithstanding the allegations in the complaint that the PBA breached an implied contract and that the loss of a life insurance policy constitutes a contractual right which was breached by Dormer’s expulsion from the PBA, the gravamen of the complaint concerns the conduct of a not-for-profit corporation whose allegedly illegal and improper actions in expelling two members are properly reviewable under CPLR article 78 (see CPLR art 78; Connors, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3001:18; State Div. of Human Rights v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 90 | 1 | 1 |
Schiffer v. Tarrytown Boat Club, Inc.green2 sentences2012Accordingly, the PBA defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint as time-barred (cf. Solnick v Whalen, 49 NY2d 224 [1980]; see Broderick v Board of Educ., Roosevelt Union Free School Dist., 253 AD2d at 837 ; Schiffer v Tarrytown Boat Club, 219 AD2d 704, 704 [1995], cert denied 519 US 864 [1996]). 2012Accordingly, the PBA defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint as time-barred (cf. Solnick v Whalen, 49 NY2d 224 [1980]; see Broderick v Board of Educ., Roosevelt Union Free School Dist., 253 AD2d at 837 ; Schiffer v Tarrytown Boat Club, 219 AD2d 704, 704 [1995], cert denied 519 US 864 [1996]). | 1 | 1 |
Broderick v. Board of Educationgreen2 sentences2012Accordingly, the PBA defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint as time-barred (cf. Solnick v Whalen, 49 NY2d 224 [1980]; see Broderick v Board of Educ., Roosevelt Union Free School Dist., 253 AD2d at 837 ; Schiffer v Tarrytown Boat Club, 219 AD2d 704, 704 [1995], cert denied 519 US 864 [1996]). 2012Accordingly, the PBA defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint as time-barred (cf. Solnick v Whalen, 49 NY2d 224 [1980]; see Broderick v Board of Educ., Roosevelt Union Free School Dist., 253 AD2d at 837 ; Schiffer v Tarrytown Boat Club, 219 AD2d 704, 704 [1995], cert denied 519 US 864 [1996]). | 1 | 1 |
Alvarez v. Prospect Hospitalgreen1 sentence2012In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). | 1 | 1 |
Ballentine v. Kochgreen1 sentence1998The relevant PBA waiver is its agreement to the 1970 legislation creating the Variable Supplements Fund as a benefit scheme outside the purview of section 7 of article V (see, Ballentine v Koch, supra, 89 NY2d, at 56, 58), which took place prior to plaintiffs’ retirement.* * We have considered plaintiffs’ other arguments and find them to be without merit. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Patrolmen's Benevolent Ass'n of the City of New York, Inc. v. City of New York
green
2 sentences2001The Appellate Division affirmed, finding that chapter 641 is not a special law subject to home rule requirements, but rather is a general law of State-wide application because it “uniformly prohibit [s] every local government from unilaterally preventing its police and fire unions from utilizing PERB.” ( 285 AD2d 52, 56 .) The Appellate Division also affirmed Supreme Court’s finding that PERB has exclusive jurisdiction over scope of bargaining disputes between PBA and the City. 2001The Appellate Division affirmed, finding that chapter 641 is not a special law subject to home rule requirements, but rather is a general law *385 of State-wide application because it "uniformly prohibit[s] every local government from unilaterally preventing its police and fire unions from utilizing PERB." ( 285 AD2d 52, 56 .) The Appellate Division also affirmed Supreme Court's finding that PERB has exclusive jurisdiction over scope of bargaining disputes between PBA and the City. | 2 | 2001–2001 |
State Division of Human Rights v. New York State Department of Correctional Services
green
1 sentence2012Notwithstanding the allegations in the complaint that the PBA breached an implied contract and that the loss of a life insurance policy constitutes a contractual right which was breached by Dormer’s expulsion from the PBA, the gravamen of the complaint concerns the conduct of a not-for-profit corporation whose allegedly illegal and improper actions in expelling two members are properly reviewable under CPLR article 78 (see CPLR art 78; Connors, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3001:18; State Div. of Human Rights v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 90 | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Weidenfeld v. . Keppler
green
1 sentence2012Notwithstanding the allegations in the complaint that the PBA breached an implied contract and that the loss of a life insurance policy constitutes a contractual right which was breached by Dormer’s expulsion from the PBA, the gravamen of the complaint concerns the conduct of a not-for-profit corporation whose allegedly illegal and improper actions in expelling two members are properly reviewable under CPLR article 78 (see CPLR art 78; Connors, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3001:18; State Div. of Human Rights v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 90 | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Adams v. Burlington Northern Railroad
green
2 sentences2012Accordingly, the PBA defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint as time-barred (cf. Solnick v Whalen, 49 NY2d 224 [1980]; see Broderick v Board of Educ., Roosevelt Union Free School Dist., 253 AD2d at 837 ; Schiffer v Tarrytown Boat Club, 219 AD2d 704, 704 [1995], cert denied 519 US 864 [1996]). 2012Accordingly, the PBA defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint as time-barred (cf. Solnick v Whalen, 49 NY2d 224 [1980]; see Broderick v Board of Educ., Roosevelt Union Free School Dist., 253 AD2d at 837 ; Schiffer v Tarrytown Boat Club, 219 AD2d 704, 704 [1995], cert denied 519 US 864 [1996]). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Solnick v. Whalen
green
2 sentences2012Accordingly, the PBA defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint as time-barred (cf. Solnick v Whalen, 49 NY2d 224 [1980]; see Broderick v Board of Educ., Roosevelt Union Free School Dist., 253 AD2d at 837 ; Schiffer v Tarrytown Boat Club, 219 AD2d 704, 704 [1995], cert denied 519 US 864 [1996]). 2012Accordingly, the PBA defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint as time-barred (cf. Solnick v Whalen, 49 NY2d 224 [1980]; see Broderick v Board of Educ., Roosevelt Union Free School Dist., 253 AD2d at 837 ; Schiffer v Tarrytown Boat Club, 219 AD2d 704, 704 [1995], cert denied 519 US 864 [1996]). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Yonkers Fur Dressing Co. v. Royal Insurance
green
1 sentence1989Co., 247 NY 435, 444 .) Thus, the PBA’s claim that the city owed its patrolmen a higher salary for the period of October 1, 1968 through December 31, 1970 was extinguished by the stipulation. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.