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 2019–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pessin v. Chris-Craft Industries, Inc.green2 sentences2020DISCUSSION In its well-reasoned opinion, Supreme Court correctly held that Fendt had no power to bring a double derivative claim on behalf of the limited partnership via A & F HHC, as A & F HHC was only a minority owner of the limited partnership ( see Pessin v Chris-Craft Indus. , 181 AD2d 66, 72 [1st Dept 1992]) [FN2] . 2020DISCUSSION In its well-reasoned opinion, Supreme Court correctly held that Fendt had no power to bring a double derivative claim on behalf of the limited partnership via A & F HHC, as A & F HHC was only a minority owner of the limited partnership ( see Pessin v Chris-Craft Indus. , 181 AD2d 66, 72 [1st Dept 1992]) [FN2] . | 2 | 2 |
Kaufman v. Cohengreen1 sentence2019Thus, plaintiff, standing in the shoes of JJS shareholders, was required to plead with particularity that Francois concealed material facts from JJS shareholders, not FrancInvest shareholders, which he did ( Basis Yield Alpha Fund (Master) v Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. , 115 AD3d 128, 135 [1st Dept 2014]; see Euryclieia Partners, LP v Seward & Kissel, LLP , 12 NY3d 553, 559 [2009]; Kaufman v Cohen , 307 AD2d 113, 119-120 [1st Dept 2003]; Dembeck v 220 Cent. | 1 | 1 |
Basis Yield Alpha Fund v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.green1 sentence2019Thus, plaintiff, standing in the shoes of JJS shareholders, was required to plead with particularity that Francois concealed material facts from JJS shareholders, not FrancInvest shareholders, which he did ( Basis Yield Alpha Fund (Master) v Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. , 115 AD3d 128, 135 [1st Dept 2014]; see Euryclieia Partners, LP v Seward & Kissel, LLP , 12 NY3d 553, 559 [2009]; Kaufman v Cohen , 307 AD2d 113, 119-120 [1st Dept 2003]; Dembeck v 220 Cent. | 1 | 1 |
Eurycleia Partners, LP v. Seward & Kissel, LLPgreen1 sentence2019Thus, plaintiff, standing in the shoes of JJS shareholders, was required to plead with particularity that Francois concealed material facts from JJS shareholders, not FrancInvest shareholders, which he did ( Basis Yield Alpha Fund (Master) v Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. , 115 AD3d 128, 135 [1st Dept 2014]; see Euryclieia Partners, LP v Seward & Kissel, LLP , 12 NY3d 553, 559 [2009]; Kaufman v Cohen , 307 AD2d 113, 119-120 [1st Dept 2003]; Dembeck v 220 Cent. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Simon v. Francinvest, S.A.
green
2 sentences2021Order, same court and Justice, entered April 13, 2020, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff's motion to renew, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to grant so much of the motion as was based on our December 2019 decision in a prior appeal ( Simon v FrancInvest, S.A., 178 AD3d 436 [1st Dept 2019]) and, upon renewal, to deny Kessler's motion to dismiss the eleventh cause of action (the double derivative claim for aiding and abetting fraud), and otherwise affirmed, without costs. 2021Order, same court and Justice, entered April 13, 2020, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff's motion to renew, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to grant so much of the motion as was based on our December 2019 decision in a prior appeal ( Simon v FrancInvest, S.A., 178 AD3d 436 [1st Dept 2019]) and, upon renewal, to deny Kessler's motion to dismiss the eleventh cause of action (the double derivative claim for aiding and abetting fraud), and otherwise affirmed, without costs. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
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.