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 4 courts 1940–2007 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 |
|---|---|---|
Claim of Koerner v. Orangetown Police Departmentgreen1 sentence2007In particular, the Transit Authority failed to establish that the decedent’s injury occurred in the course of, and arose from, his employment with the Transit Authority such that the exclusive remedy of Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 10 and 11 barred this action (see Matter of Koerner v Orangetown Police Dept., 68 NY2d 974, 974-975 [1986]; Matter of Mattaldi v Beth Israel Med. | 1 | 1 |
Claim of Torio v. Fisher Body Division—General Motors Corp.green1 sentence2007Ctr., 29 AD3d 1192 [2006]; Matter of Torio v Fisher Body Div.-General Motors Corp., 119 AD2d 955, 956 [1986]). | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Stategreen1 sentence2005Eschewing a strict construction of the provision, the court held “the conflict may be avoided simply by allowing the remedy of section 10 (8) (a) to apply where a notice of intention was timely served on the Attorney General [without having been filed] and where all of the remaining statutory-prerequisites for relief thereunder have been met” (id. at 503). 13 Turning to the absence of the total sum claimed, the court observed: “the failure of the notice of intention to specify the amount of damages sought is not fatal to this application where the notice was otherwise sufficient to apprise the | 1 | 1 |
Murray v. City of New Yorkgreen1 sentence1998(Murray v City of New York, 43 NY2d 400, 407 [1977].) Petitioner’s applying for, being awarded, and accepting workers’ compensation benefits bars petitioner’s claim under the exclusive remedy of Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 10 and 11 (Diakakis v Bedrick, 244 AD2d 167, 168 [1st Dept 1997]). | 1 | 1 |
Diakakis v. Bedrickgreen1 sentence1998(Murray v City of New York, 43 NY2d 400, 407 [1977].) Petitioner’s applying for, being awarded, and accepting workers’ compensation benefits bars petitioner’s claim under the exclusive remedy of Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 10 and 11 (Diakakis v Bedrick, 244 AD2d 167, 168 [1st Dept 1997]). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Claim of Mattaldi v. Beth Israel Medical Center
green
1 sentence2007Ctr., 29 AD3d 1192 [2006]; Matter of Torio v Fisher Body Div.-General Motors Corp., 119 AD2d 955, 956 [1986]). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Barski v. State
green
1 sentence2005Eschewing a strict construction of the provision, the court held “the conflict may be avoided simply by allowing the remedy of section 10 (8) (a) to apply where a notice of intention was timely served on the Attorney General [without having been filed] and where all of the remaining statutory-prerequisites for relief thereunder have been met” (id. at 503). 13 Turning to the absence of the total sum claimed, the court observed: “the failure of the notice of intention to specify the amount of damages sought is not fatal to this application where the notice was otherwise sufficient to apprise the | 1 | 2005–2005 |
McCabe v. State
green
1 sentence2005Eschewing a strict construction of the provision, the court held “the conflict may be avoided simply by allowing the remedy of section 10 (8) (a) to apply where a notice of intention was timely served on the Attorney General [without having been filed] and where all of the remaining statutory-prerequisites for relief thereunder have been met” (id. at 503). 13 Turning to the absence of the total sum claimed, the court observed: “the failure of the notice of intention to specify the amount of damages sought is not fatal to this application where the notice was otherwise sufficient to apprise the | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Iazzetti v. City of New York
green
1 sentence2000This reading of the two statutes gives continuing utility to the important relief afforded by section 10 (8) (a) (see, Iazzetti v City of New York, 94 NY2d, at 189 , supra). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Ali v. Bunny Realty Corp.
green
1 sentence1998A petitioner in a late notice of claim proceeding need not definitively demonstrate that his or her claim is meritorious but only must show that sufficient facts exist to establish that his or her claims are reasonable (see, Ali v Bunny Realty Corp., 253 AD2d 356 [1st Dept 1998]). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
In Re the Liquidation of National Surety Co.
green
1 sentence1940This Court held that the proceedings taken under Article XI of the Insurance Law did revoke such designation, but did not impair the Constitutional rights of appellant, or violate the provisions of Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution of the United States.” (See 283 N. Y. 68 .) | 1 | 1940–1940 |
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.
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.