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 3 courts 1995–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wright v. State of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2025The Court concluded that the four-year period alleged in Wright's claim satisfied section 11 (b) because "the events are alleged to have occurred several decades ago, when [Wright] was a child," and "it is not clear how providing exact dates, as opposed to a range of years, would better enable the State to conduct a prompt investigation of the subject claim" ( id. [internal quotation marks and brackets omitted]). 2025The Court concluded that the four-year period alleged in Wright's claim satisfied section 11 (b) because "the events are alleged to have occurred several decades ago, when [Wright] was a child," and "it is not clear how providing exact dates, as opposed to a range of years, would better enable the State to conduct a prompt investigation of the subject claim" ( id. [internal quotation marks and brackets omitted]). | 1 | 2 |
Lepkowski v. State of NYgreen2 sentences2025The State is left to "guess" whether at any point during the four-year period alleged in the claim it owed some duty to Wright and, if so, whether it breached that obligation ( Lepkowski , 1 NY3d at 201 ). 2025The State is left to "guess" whether at any point during the four-year period alleged in the claim it owed some duty to Wright and, if so, whether it breached that obligation ( Lepkowski , 1 NY3d at 201). | 1 | 2 |
Hecht v. City of New Yorkgreen1 sentence2011Since the ARC Interior defendants had not filed a notice of appeal, there would have been no basis to grant them affirmative relief on this issue even if they had requested it (see e.g. 61 W. 62 Owners Corp. v CGM EMP LLC, 16 NY3d 822 , 823 n [2011]; Hecht v City of New York, 60 NY2d 57, 61-62 [1983]). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kopelevich & Feldsherova, P.C. v. Geller Law Group, P.C.
green
1 sentence2025Corp., 167 AD3d 514 , 515 [1st Dept 2018]) the objections to RFAs 6, 8, 9, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 44, and 45 are proper and Wright can question Petoransky as to these elements at his deposition; and it is further ORDERED that the portion of the Petrokansky Entities’s motion (MS #5) seeking to compel Wright to produce additional documents is granted but only to the extent that Mr. Wright is compelled to provide a Jackson affidavit that he has provided all responsive documents as to the relevant time period, which is January 1, 2017 – September 22, 2022 as records up to the present | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Wright v. State of New York
green
1 sentence2025The Appellate Division further determined that the allegations were "sufficient to provide [the State] with an indication of the manner in which [Wright] was injured and{**43 NY3d at 538} how [the State] was negligent" ( id. at 136 [internal quotation marks and ellipsis omitted]), and denied the State's motion to dismiss the claim. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Wright v. Riverbay Corp.
neutral
1 sentence2011An examination of the briefs in Wright v Riverbay Corp. ( 82 AD3d 444 [2011]) shows that the Wright defendant, in appealing to this Court, never argued that the trial court’s erroneous failure to charge comparative negligence required a new trial on the issue of defendant’s liability as well as on the issue of comparative negligence. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Gonzalez v. ARC Interior Construction
green
2 sentences2011Given that the Wright defendant was not requesting a new trial as to its own liability, the majority is simply incorrect in asserting that Wright is “directly on point.” In Gonzalez v ARC Interior Constr. ( 83 AD3d 418 [2011]), it was the plaintiff, not the defendants, who took the appeal from an order that, while granting her summary judgment as to liability, directed that the damages trial encompass the issue of comparative fault. 2011Given that the Wright defendant was not requesting a new trial as to its own liability, the majority is simply incorrect in asserting that Wright is “directly on point.” In Gonzalez v ARC Interior Constr. ( 83 AD3d 418 [2011]), it was the plaintiff, not the defendants, who took the appeal from an order that, while granting her summary judgment as to liability, directed that the damages trial encompass the issue of comparative fault. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
61 West 62 Owners Corp. v. CGM EMP LLC
green
1 sentence2011Since the ARC Interior defendants had not filed a notice of appeal, there would have been no basis to grant them affirmative relief on this issue even if they had requested it (see e.g. 61 W. 62 Owners Corp. v CGM EMP LLC, 16 NY3d 822 , 823 n [2011]; Hecht v City of New York, 60 NY2d 57, 61-62 [1983]). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
National Bank of Stamford v. Van Keuren
green
1 sentence1995In National Bank of Stamford v Van Keuren ( 184 AD2d 92, 95 ), this Court recognized that absolute control of the workings of a judicial sale rests with the court, not the parties. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.