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.
6 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
Leon v. Martinezgreen2 sentences2014When we accept as true the facts as alleged in the complaint, and afford plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, as we must on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87 [1994]), the allegations of the complaint are sufficient to state the formation of a contract, and its breach. 2014When we accept as true the facts as alleged in the complaint, and afford plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, as we must on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87 [1994]), the allegations of the complaint are sufficient to state the formation of a contract, and its breach. | 2 | 2 |
Cherry v. Kochgreen1 sentence1999This conclusion follows from the rule that an “amended com plaint * * * must be considered de novo and [a] previous determination with respect to the plaintiffs status does not constitute the law of the case” (see, Mendez v Goroff, 25 Misc 2d 1013, 1014 [Sup Ct, Kings County 1960], affd 13 AD2d 705 [2d Dept 1961], appeal withdrawn 12 NY2d 842 [1962]; see also, Cherry v Koch, 129 Misc 2d 346, 349 [Sup Ct, Kings County 1985]). | 1 | 1 |
Mendez v. Goroffgreen1 sentence1999This conclusion follows from the rule that an “amended com plaint * * * must be considered de novo and [a] previous determination with respect to the plaintiffs status does not constitute the law of the case” (see, Mendez v Goroff, 25 Misc 2d 1013, 1014 [Sup Ct, Kings County 1960], affd 13 AD2d 705 [2d Dept 1961], appeal withdrawn 12 NY2d 842 [1962]; see also, Cherry v Koch, 129 Misc 2d 346, 349 [Sup Ct, Kings County 1985]). | 1 | 1 |
Amaducci v. Metropolitan Opera Ass'ngreen1 sentence1978(Great Neck Assoc, v Village of Great Neck Estates, 26 AD2d 546, 547 ; 4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 3211.38; see Amaducci v Metropolitan Opera Assoc., 33 AD2d 542.) The second cause of action is dismissed as insufficient (CPLR 3211, subd [a], par 7). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mendez v. Goroff
neutral
1 sentence1999This conclusion follows from the rule that an “amended com plaint * * * must be considered de novo and [a] previous determination with respect to the plaintiffs status does not constitute the law of the case” (see, Mendez v Goroff, 25 Misc 2d 1013, 1014 [Sup Ct, Kings County 1960], affd 13 AD2d 705 [2d Dept 1961], appeal withdrawn 12 NY2d 842 [1962]; see also, Cherry v Koch, 129 Misc 2d 346, 349 [Sup Ct, Kings County 1985]). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Mendez v. Goroff
neutral
1 sentence1999This conclusion follows from the rule that an “amended com plaint * * * must be considered de novo and [a] previous determination with respect to the plaintiffs status does not constitute the law of the case” (see, Mendez v Goroff, 25 Misc 2d 1013, 1014 [Sup Ct, Kings County 1960], affd 13 AD2d 705 [2d Dept 1961], appeal withdrawn 12 NY2d 842 [1962]; see also, Cherry v Koch, 129 Misc 2d 346, 349 [Sup Ct, Kings County 1985]). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Crow-Crimmins-Wolff & Munier v. County of Westchester
green
1 sentence1984(Crow-Crimmins-Wolff & Munier v County of Westchester, 90 AD2d 785 .) Applying these criteria to the instant matter, the third-party complaint contains sufficient allegations to defeat a challenge under CPLR 3211. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Schauer v. Joyce
green
1 sentence1984H Although Special Term attempted to distinguish between the facts in Schauer v Joyce (supra) and those involved here, the court made what is, in effect, a factual determination which might have been appropriate to a motion for summary judgment (CPLR 3212), but should not have been the basis for a decision on a motion to dismiss. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
De Maria v. Josephs
neutral
1 sentence1980Therefore, we need not consider the sufficiency of the remaining causes of action in the complaint (see De Maria v Josephs, 41 AD2d 655 ). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Great Neck Associates v. Incorporated Village of Great Neck Estates
neutral
1 sentence1978(Great Neck Assoc, v Village of Great Neck Estates, 26 AD2d 546, 547 ; 4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 3211.38; see Amaducci v Metropolitan Opera Assoc., 33 AD2d 542.) The second cause of action is dismissed as insufficient (CPLR 3211, subd [a], par 7). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.