gravamen claim in New York

2024"If the gravamen of a claim falls within the scope of Article 78, that claim must be brought as an Article 78 proceeding even if it was commenced under some other legal theory" ( Nespoli v Bd. of Trustees of the New York City Employees' Retirement System , 2021 NY Slip Op 31603[U] , *2 [Sup Ct, NY County 2017]; see Duffy v City of New York , 452317/2020, 2021 WL 4076944 , at *1 [Sup Ct, NY County 2021] ["while plaintiff's claims are brought as a breach of an employment agreement and tortious interference . . . the gravamen of plaintiff's complaint seeks to review the HHC's administrative deter

2024"If the gravamen of a claim falls within the scope of Article 78, that claim must be brought as an Article 78 proceeding even if it was commenced under some other legal theory" ( Nespoli v Bd. of Trustees of the New York City Employees' Retirement System , 2021 NY Slip Op 31603[U] , *2 [Sup Ct, NY County 2017]; see Duffy v City of New York , 452317/2020, 2021 WL 4076944 , at *1 [Sup Ct, NY County 2021] ["while plaintiff's claims are brought as a breach of an employment agreement and tortious interference . . . the gravamen of plaintiff's complaint seeks to review the HHC's administrative deter

2024"If the gravamen of a claim falls within the scope of Article 78, that claim must be brought as an Article 78 proceeding even if it was commenced under some other legal theory" ( Nespoli v Bd. of Trustees of the New York City Employees' Retirement System , 2021 NY Slip Op 31603[U] , *2 [Sup Ct, NY County 2017]; see Duffy v City of New York , 452317/2020, 2021 WL 4076944 , at *1 [Sup Ct, NY County 2021] ["while plaintiff's claims are brought as a breach of an employment agreement and tortious interference . . . the gravamen of plaintiff's complaint seeks to review the HHC's administrative deter

2024"If the gravamen of a claim falls within the scope of Article 78, that claim must be brought as an Article 78 proceeding even if it was commenced under some other legal theory" ( Nespoli v Bd. of Trustees of the New York City Employees' Retirement System , 2021 NY Slip Op 31603[U] , *2 [Sup Ct, NY County 2017]; see Duffy v City of New York , 452317/2020, 2021 WL 4076944 , at *1 [Sup Ct, NY County 2021] ["while plaintiff's claims are brought as a breach of an employment agreement and tortious interference . . . the gravamen of plaintiff's complaint seeks to review the HHC's administrative deter

2014School Dist. v Clark, Clark, Millis & Gilson, 294 AD2d at 99 ; see also Bunker v Bunker, 80 AD2d 817, 817-818 [1981]).

2014School Dist. v Clark, Clark, Millis & Gilson, 294 AD2d at 99 ; see also Bunker v Bunker, 80 AD2d 817, 817-818 [1981]).

2024The gravamen of a claim of unfair competition is the bad faith misappropriation of a commercial advantage belonging to another by the exploitation of proprietary information or trade secrets, or its skill, labor, and expenditures (Krinos Foods, Inc. v Vintage Food Corp., 30 AD3d 332, 334 [1 st Dept 2006]; Comprehensive Community Dev.

2019The gravamen of a claim of unfair competition is the bad-faith misappropriation of a commercial advantage belonging to another by infringement or dilution of a trademark or trade name or by exploitation of proprietary information or trade secrets ( Eagle Comtronics v Pico Prods. , 256 AD2d 1202, 1203).

2019The gravamen of a claim of unfair competition is the bad-faith misappropriation of a commercial advantage belonging to another by infringement or dilution of a trademark or trade name or by exploitation of proprietary information or trade secrets (<b>Eagle Comtronics v Pico Prods.</b>, 256 AD2d 1202, 1203 ).

2018In any event, inasmuch as the gravamen of the claim appears to be the manner in which claimant's employment was terminated in 2009, her May 2014 notice of intention to file a claim seeking review of OSC's determination to terminate her employment was untimely under any theory of relief ( see Court of Claims Act § 10) and "may be reviewed only in the context of a CPLR article 78 proceeding commenced in Supreme Court, and not in an action brought in the Court of Claims" ( Buonanotte v New York State Off. of Alcoholism & Substance Abuse Servs. , 60 AD3d 1142, 1144 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 712 [2

2018In any event, inasmuch as the gravamen of the claim appears to be the manner in which claimant's employment was terminated in 2009, her May 2014 notice of intention to file a claim seeking review of OSC's determination to terminate her employment was untimely under any theory of relief ( see Court of Claims Act § 10) and "may be reviewed only in the context of a CPLR article 78 proceeding commenced in Supreme Court, and not in an action brought in the Court of Claims" ( Buonanotte v New York State Off. of Alcoholism & Substance Abuse Servs. , 60 AD3d 1142, 1144 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 712 [2

2016The gravamen of the defense is that because the Second Department has expanded the scope of the statute to encompass a condominium unit (see Quinones v Board of Mgrs. of Regalwalk Condominium I, 242 AD2d 52, 57 [2d Dept 1998]), plaintiff cannot contest the use to which the premises were ultimately put.

2015Plaintiff maintains that this condition presented a maintenance and repair issue that defendant was required to address in its proprietary capacity for which basic negligence and not sovereign immunity principles apply (see Wittorf v City of New York, 23 NY3d 473, 479 [2014]).

2007The court disagrees and finds that claimant’s failure to properly identify the agency responsible for canceling his warrant does not impair the gravamen of the claim. “[T]here is . . . ample authority for imposing liability upon the State based upon the negligent performance of a ministerial act” (Boland v State of New York, 218 AD2d 235, 245 [1996]), which “may flow from the negligence of nonjudicial employees in performing their ministerial duties” (Schwandt at 410 ).

1995In People v Moselle ( 57 NY2d 97, 101 [1982]) the Court of Appeals held that: "[a]bsent a manifestation of a defendant’s consent thereto, blood samples taken without a court order other than in conformity with the provisions [of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194] are inadmissible in prosecutions for operat ing a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol under section 1192 of that law” (emphasis added).

1991"Thus, the gravamen of a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (2) is not that a defendant operates a vehicle with .10% or higher blood alcohol content, but that he is found to have done so under the procedures prescribed by section 1194.” ( 68 NY2d, at 149 [emphasis supplied].) In the absence of any explicit guidance from the Appellate Division, First Department, and with a clear split among the other departments and even within the Third Department, this court finds support for its decision not only in the previously cited cases from the Fourth Department but in the language of the Cou