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 2 courts 1994–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Joosten v. Galegreen2 sentences2014Although his complaint was not verified by him, a review of the record shows that the affidavit he submitted on his motion for a default judgment provided “firsthand confirmation” of the facts alleged (Joosten v Gale, 129 AD2d 531, 535 [1st Dept 1987]; see Feffer v Malpeso, 210 AD2d 60, 61 [1st Dept 1994]; Mullins v DiLorenzo, 199 AD2d 218, 219-220 [1st Dept 1993]), which sufficiently states a claim for fraudulent inducement (see Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney, 88 NY2d 413, 421 [1996]). 2014Although his complaint was not verified by him, a review of the record shows that the affidavit he submitted on his motion for a default judgment provided “firsthand confirmation” of the facts alleged (Joosten v Gale, 129 AD2d 531, 535 [1st Dept 1987]; see Feffer v Malpeso, 210 AD2d 60, 61 [1st Dept 1994]; Mullins v DiLorenzo, 199 AD2d 218, 219-220 [1st Dept 1993]), which sufficiently states a claim for fraudulent inducement (see Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney, 88 NY2d 413, 421 [1996]). | 2 | 2 |
Mullins v. DiLorenzogreen2 sentences2014Although his complaint was not verified by him, a review of the record shows that the affidavit he submitted on his motion for a default judgment provided “firsthand confirmation” of the facts alleged (Joosten v Gale, 129 AD2d 531, 535 [1st Dept 1987]; see Feffer v Malpeso, 210 AD2d 60, 61 [1st Dept 1994]; Mullins v DiLorenzo, 199 AD2d 218, 219-220 [1st Dept 1993]), which sufficiently states a claim for fraudulent inducement (see Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney, 88 NY2d 413, 421 [1996]). 2014Although his complaint was not verified by him, a review of the record shows that the affidavit he submitted on his motion for a default judgment provided “firsthand confirmation” of the facts alleged (Joosten v Gale, 129 AD2d 531, 535 [1st Dept 1987]; see Feffer v Malpeso, 210 AD2d 60, 61 [1st Dept 1994]; Mullins v DiLorenzo, 199 AD2d 218, 219-220 [1st Dept 1993]), which sufficiently states a claim for fraudulent inducement (see Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney, 88 NY2d 413, 421 [1996]). | 2 | 2 |
Feffer v. Malpesogreen2 sentences2014Although his complaint was not verified by him, a review of the record shows that the affidavit he submitted on his motion for a default judgment provided “firsthand confirmation” of the facts alleged (Joosten v Gale, 129 AD2d 531, 535 [1st Dept 1987]; see Feffer v Malpeso, 210 AD2d 60, 61 [1st Dept 1994]; Mullins v DiLorenzo, 199 AD2d 218, 219-220 [1st Dept 1993]), which sufficiently states a claim for fraudulent inducement (see Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney, 88 NY2d 413, 421 [1996]). 2014Although his complaint was not verified by him, a review of the record shows that the affidavit he submitted on his motion for a default judgment provided “firsthand confirmation” of the facts alleged (Joosten v Gale, 129 AD2d 531, 535 [1st Dept 1987]; see Feffer v Malpeso, 210 AD2d 60, 61 [1st Dept 1994]; Mullins v DiLorenzo, 199 AD2d 218, 219-220 [1st Dept 1993]), which sufficiently states a claim for fraudulent inducement (see Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney, 88 NY2d 413, 421 [1996]). | 2 | 2 |
Lama Holding Co. v. Smith Barney Inc.green2 sentences2014Although his complaint was not verified by him, a review of the record shows that the affidavit he submitted on his motion for a default judgment provided “firsthand confirmation” of the facts alleged (Joosten v Gale, 129 AD2d 531, 535 [1st Dept 1987]; see Feffer v Malpeso, 210 AD2d 60, 61 [1st Dept 1994]; Mullins v DiLorenzo, 199 AD2d 218, 219-220 [1st Dept 1993]), which sufficiently states a claim for fraudulent inducement (see Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney, 88 NY2d 413, 421 [1996]). 2014Although his complaint was not verified by him, a review of the record shows that the affidavit he submitted on his motion for a default judgment provided “firsthand confirmation” of the facts alleged (Joosten v Gale, 129 AD2d 531, 535 [1st Dept 1987]; see Feffer v Malpeso, 210 AD2d 60, 61 [1st Dept 1994]; Mullins v DiLorenzo, 199 AD2d 218, 219-220 [1st Dept 1993]), which sufficiently states a claim for fraudulent inducement (see Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney, 88 NY2d 413, 421 [1996]). | 2 | 2 |
Gilbert Frank Corp. v. Federal Insurancegreen1 sentence2005Co., 70 NY2d 966, 967 [1988] [bald assertions, without evidence to support them, are insufficient to oppose a motion for summary judgment]; Handel v Bruder, 209 AD2d 282 [1994] [plaintiffs complaint was insufficient to set forth a prima facie fraud claim because it failed to set forth specific and detailed factual allegations that the defendant personally participated in, or had knowledge of, any alleged fraud]). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
IKB International S.A. v. Stanley
green
1 sentence2024S.A. v Morgan Stanley, 142 AD3d 447 [1st Dept 2016]). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Handel v. Bruder
green
1 sentence2005Co., 70 NY2d 966, 967 [1988] [bald assertions, without evidence to support them, are insufficient to oppose a motion for summary judgment]; Handel v Bruder, 209 AD2d 282 [1994] [plaintiffs complaint was insufficient to set forth a prima facie fraud claim because it failed to set forth specific and detailed factual allegations that the defendant personally participated in, or had knowledge of, any alleged fraud]). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Residential Board of Managers of Zeckendorf Towers v. Union Square-14th Street Associates
green
1 sentence1994Assocs., 190 AD2d 636, 637-638 ). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.