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.
30 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1957–2023 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Golden v. Goldengreen2 sentences2014Co. v City of New York, 74 NY2d 166, 170 [1989]; see also Herrick v Second Cuthouse, 100 AD2d 952, 953 [2d Dept 1984], affd 64 NY2d 692 [1984]). 2014Co. v City of New York, 74 NY2d 166, 170 [1989]; see also Herrick v Second Cuthouse, 100 AD2d 952, 953 [2d Dept 1984], affd 64 NY2d 692 [1984]). | 2 | 2 |
Thomas Crimmins Contracting Co. v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2014Co. v City of New York, 74 NY2d 166, 170 [1989]; see also Herrick v Second Cuthouse, 100 AD2d 952, 953 [2d Dept 1984], affd 64 NY2d 692 [1984]). 2014Co. v City of New York, 74 NY2d 166, 170 [1989]; see also Herrick v Second Cuthouse, 100 AD2d 952, 953 [2d Dept 1984], affd 64 NY2d 692 [1984]). | 2 | 2 |
Herrick v. Second Cuthouse, Ltd.green2 sentences2014Co. v City of New York, 74 NY2d 166, 170 [1989]; see also Herrick v Second Cuthouse, 100 AD2d 952, 953 [2d Dept 1984], affd 64 NY2d 692 [1984]). 2014Co. v City of New York, 74 NY2d 166, 170 [1989]; see also Herrick v Second Cuthouse, 100 AD2d 952, 953 [2d Dept 1984], affd 64 NY2d 692 [1984]). | 2 | 2 |
Beck v. Northside Medicalgreen2 sentences2013School, 65 NY2d 161 , 169 [1985]; cf. Gray v Gonzalez, 290 AD2d 292, 293 [2002]; Charell v Gonzalez, 251 AD2d 72 [1998]; Beck v Northside Med., 46 AD3d 499, 500 [2007]). 2013School, 65 NY2d 161 , 169 [1985]; cf. Gray v Gonzalez, 290 AD2d 292, 293 [2002]; Charell v Gonzalez, 251 AD2d 72 [1998]; Beck v Northside Med., 46 AD3d 499, 500 [2007]). | 2 | 2 |
Gray v. Gonzalezgreen2 sentences2013School, 65 NY2d 161 , 169 [1985]; cf. Gray v Gonzalez, 290 AD2d 292, 293 [2002]; Charell v Gonzalez, 251 AD2d 72 [1998]; Beck v Northside Med., 46 AD3d 499, 500 [2007]). 2013School, 65 NY2d 161 , 169 [1985]; cf. Gray v Gonzalez, 290 AD2d 292, 293 [2002]; Charell v Gonzalez, 251 AD2d 72 [1998]; Beck v Northside Med., 46 AD3d 499, 500 [2007]). | 2 | 2 |
Baker v. County of Oswegogreen2 sentences2017In opposition to defendant’s motion, plaintiff contended that the proposed affirmative defense lacked merit because such immunity generally does not extend to a government entity that operates and maintains property that is kept open to the public for those enumerated activities (see Ferres v City of New Rochelle, 68 NY2d 446, 451-454 ; Baker v County of Oswego, 77 AD3d 1348, 1349 ). 2017In opposition to defendant’s motion, plaintiff contended that the proposed affirmative defense lacked merit because such immunity generally does not extend to a government entity that operates and maintains property that is kept open to the public for those enumerated activities (see Ferres v City of New Rochelle, 68 NY2d 446, 451-454 [1986]; Baker v County of Oswego, 77 AD3d 1348, 1349 [2010]). | 1 | 2 |
Phillips v.Eastman Kodak Co.green2 sentences2017Thus, plaintiff’s conduct was not frivolous inasmuch as she opposed defendant’s motion on appropriate grounds and based her opposition on well-settled case law, regardless of whether plaintiff’s opposition to the motion was unlikely to succeed (see Matter of Bozer v Higgins, 204 AD2d 979, 980 ). 2017Thus, plaintiff’s conduct was not frivolous inasmuch as she opposed defendant’s motion on appropriate grounds and based her opposition on well-settled case law, regardless of *1677 whether plaintiff’s opposition to the motion was unlikely to succeed (see Matter of Bozer v Higgins, 204 AD2d 979, 980 [1994]). | 1 | 2 |
Ferres v. City of New Rochellegreen2 sentences2017In opposition to defendant’s motion, plaintiff contended that the proposed affirmative defense lacked merit because such immunity generally does not extend to a government entity that operates and maintains property that is kept open to the public for those enumerated activities (see Ferres v City of New Rochelle, 68 NY2d 446, 451-454 ; Baker v County of Oswego, 77 AD3d 1348, 1349 ). 2017In opposition to defendant’s motion, plaintiff contended that the proposed affirmative defense lacked merit because such immunity generally does not extend to a government entity that operates and maintains property that is kept open to the public for those enumerated activities (see Ferres v City of New Rochelle, 68 NY2d 446, 451-454 [1986]; Baker v County of Oswego, 77 AD3d 1348, 1349 [2010]). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Procanickgreen1 sentence2023Although defendant inquired regarding the defense, we conclude that "defendant failed to provide the court with an adequate factual basis for his proposed" defense ( People v Breheny , 270 AD2d 926, 927 [4th Dept 2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 851 [2000]). "[O]ffers of proof must be made clearly and unambiguously" ( People v Williams , 6 NY2d 18, 23 [1959], cert denied 361 US 920 [1959], rearg denied 10 NY2d 1011 [1961]; see Breheny , 270 AD2d at 927 ), and inasmuch as defendant failed to make an offer of proof demonstrating that the proposed affirmative defense applied in this case ( see generally | 1 | 1 |
People v. Schafergreen1 sentence2023Although defendant inquired regarding the defense, we conclude that "defendant failed to provide the court with an adequate factual basis for his proposed" defense ( People v Breheny , 270 AD2d 926, 927 [4th Dept 2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 851 [2000]). "[O]ffers of proof must be made clearly and unambiguously" ( People v Williams , 6 NY2d 18, 23 [1959], cert denied 361 US 920 [1959], rearg denied 10 NY2d 1011 [1961]; see Breheny , 270 AD2d at 927 ), and inasmuch as defendant failed to make an offer of proof demonstrating that the proposed affirmative defense applied in this case ( see generally | 1 | 1 |
People v. Santanagreen1 sentence2023Although defendant inquired regarding the defense, we conclude that "defendant failed to provide the court with an adequate factual basis for his proposed" defense ( People v Breheny , 270 AD2d 926, 927 [4th Dept 2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 851 [2000]). "[O]ffers of proof must be made clearly and unambiguously" ( People v Williams , 6 NY2d 18, 23 [1959], cert denied 361 US 920 [1959], rearg denied 10 NY2d 1011 [1961]; see Breheny , 270 AD2d at 927 ), and inasmuch as defendant failed to make an offer of proof demonstrating that the proposed affirmative defense applied in this case ( see generally | 1 | 1 |
People v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2023Although defendant inquired regarding the defense, we conclude that "defendant failed to provide the court with an adequate factual basis for his proposed" defense ( People v Breheny , 270 AD2d 926, 927 [4th Dept 2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 851 [2000]). "[O]ffers of proof must be made clearly and unambiguously" ( People v Williams , 6 NY2d 18, 23 [1959], cert denied 361 US 920 [1959], rearg denied 10 NY2d 1011 [1961]; see Breheny , 270 AD2d at 927 ), and inasmuch as defendant failed to make an offer of proof demonstrating that the proposed affirmative defense applied in this case ( see generally | 1 | 1 |
People v. Brehenygreen2 sentences2023Although defendant inquired regarding the defense, we conclude that "defendant failed to provide the court with an adequate factual basis for his proposed" defense ( People v Breheny , 270 AD2d 926, 927 [4th Dept 2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 851 [2000]). "[O]ffers of proof must be made clearly and unambiguously" ( People v Williams , 6 NY2d 18, 23 [1959], cert denied 361 US 920 [1959], rearg denied 10 NY2d 1011 [1961]; see Breheny , 270 AD2d at 927 ), and inasmuch as defendant failed to make an offer of proof demonstrating that the proposed affirmative defense applied in this case ( see generally 2023Although defendant inquired regarding the defense, we conclude that "defendant failed to provide the court with an adequate factual basis for his proposed" defense ( People v Breheny , 270 AD2d 926, 927 [4th Dept 2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 851 [2000]). "[O]ffers of proof must be made clearly and unambiguously" ( People v Williams , 6 NY2d 18, 23 [1959], cert denied 361 US 920 [1959], rearg denied 10 NY2d 1011 [1961]; see Breheny , 270 AD2d at 927 ), and inasmuch as defendant failed to make an offer of proof demonstrating that the proposed affirmative defense applied in this case ( see generally | 1 | 1 |
Gamer v. Rossgreen1 sentence2022The allegations in the new proposed affirmative defense were "palpably insufficient" to state a defense based on res judicata or collateral estoppel ( Lucido v Mancuso , 49 AD3d at 229 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Gamer v Ross , 49 AD3d 598, 601 ). | 1 | 1 |
Lucido v. Mancusogreen1 sentence2022The allegations in the new proposed affirmative defense were "palpably insufficient" to state a defense based on res judicata or collateral estoppel ( Lucido v Mancuso , 49 AD3d at 229 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Gamer v Ross , 49 AD3d 598, 601 ). | 1 | 1 |
Kopsidas v. Krokosgreen1 sentence2020"The doctrine of unclean hands applies when the complaining party shows that the offending party is guilty of immoral, unconscionable conduct and even then only when the conduct relied on is directly related to the subject matter in litigation and the party seeking to invoke the doctrine was injured by such conduct" ( Kopsidas v Krokos , 294 AD2d 406, 407 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Ortiz v Silver Invs. , 165 AD3d 1156 ). | 1 | 1 |
Kacperski v. Dandreagreen1 sentence2015Co., 121 AD3d 948, 950 [2014]; Finkelstein v Lincoln Natl. | 1 | 1 |
| DeLarco v. DeWittgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Dynamics Corp. of America v. Marine Midland Bank-New Yorkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hansen v. Madanigreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mehlenbacher v. Swartoutgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Peak v. Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes, P.C.green | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Odumgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Amsellem v. Host Marriott Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Hecht v. City of New Yorkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Luscher v. Arruagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ingrami v. Rovnergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Curran v. Auto Lab Service Center, Inc.green | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Reese v. Jahan Contracting
neutral
2 sentences2021As the plaintiff would not be prejudiced or surprised by the assertion of this proposed affirmative defense, and it is not palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit, leave to amend the Good-Will defendants' answer to assert it should have been granted ( see CPLR 3025[b]; National Recruiting Group, LLC v Bern Ripka LLP , 183 AD3d 831, 833 ; Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Jean-Baptiste , 178 AD3d 883 , 886; Reese v Jahan Contr. , 120 AD3d 1399, 1400 ; Goodarzi v City of New York , 217 AD2d 683, 684 ). 2021However, contrary to the appellants' contention, the Supreme Court providently, in effect, denied that branch of the motion which was for leave to amend their answer to assert the affirmative defense of lack of standing and the remaining proposed affirmative defenses, as the proposed affirmative defense of lack of standing was already asserted in the answer, and the remaining affirmative defenses were palpably insufficient ( see Reese v Jahan Contr. , 120 AD3d 1399, 1400 ; Unger v Leviton , 25 AD3d 689, 690 ). | 2 | 2021–2021 |
McCaskey, Davies & Associates, Inc. v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.
green
2 sentences2015Corp., 59 NY2d 755 [1983].) Here, plaintiff will not be prejudiced or surprised by the amendment and the proposed affirmative defense is neither palpably insufficient nor devoid of merit. 2009Corp., 59 NY2d 755 [1983]), and the proposed affirmative defense was neither devoid of merit nor palpably insufficient as a matter of law (see Ingrami, 45 AD3d at 808 ; Hill, 42 AD3d at 433 ), defendant should have been granted leave to amend its answer (see Ingrami, 45 AD3d at 808 [a defendant who has failed to assert a defense set forth in CPLR 3211 (a) (5) both in a motion to dismiss and an answer (see CPLR 3211 [e]) may nonetheless be granted leave to amend the answer to assert such defense under appropriate circumstances]). | 2 | 2009–2015 |
Charell v. Gonzalez
green
2 sentences2013School, 65 NY2d 161 , 169 [1985]; cf. Gray v Gonzalez, 290 AD2d 292, 293 [2002]; Charell v Gonzalez, 251 AD2d 72 [1998]; Beck v Northside Med., 46 AD3d 499, 500 [2007]). 2013School, 65 NY2d 161 , 169 [1985]; cf. Gray v Gonzalez, 290 AD2d 292, 293 [2002]; Charell v Gonzalez, 251 AD2d 72 [1998]; Beck v Northside Med., 46 AD3d 499, 500 [2007]). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Potter
green
1 sentence2023Although defendant inquired regarding the defense, we conclude that "defendant failed to provide the court with an adequate factual basis for his proposed" defense ( People v Breheny , 270 AD2d 926, 927 [4th Dept 2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 851 [2000]). "[O]ffers of proof must be made clearly and unambiguously" ( People v Williams , 6 NY2d 18, 23 [1959], cert denied 361 US 920 [1959], rearg denied 10 NY2d 1011 [1961]; see Breheny , 270 AD2d at 927 ), and inasmuch as defendant failed to make an offer of proof demonstrating that the proposed affirmative defense applied in this case ( see generally | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. RIQUELME
green
1 sentence2023Although defendant inquired regarding the defense, we conclude that "defendant failed to provide the court with an adequate factual basis for his proposed" defense ( People v Breheny , 270 AD2d 926, 927 [4th Dept 2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 851 [2000]). "[O]ffers of proof must be made clearly and unambiguously" ( People v Williams , 6 NY2d 18, 23 [1959], cert denied 361 US 920 [1959], rearg denied 10 NY2d 1011 [1961]; see Breheny , 270 AD2d at 927 ), and inasmuch as defendant failed to make an offer of proof demonstrating that the proposed affirmative defense applied in this case ( see generally | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Manchester v. Heinze
green
1 sentence2023Although defendant inquired regarding the defense, we conclude that "defendant failed to provide the court with an adequate factual basis for his proposed" defense ( People v Breheny , 270 AD2d 926, 927 [4th Dept 2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 851 [2000]). "[O]ffers of proof must be made clearly and unambiguously" ( People v Williams , 6 NY2d 18, 23 [1959], cert denied 361 US 920 [1959], rearg denied 10 NY2d 1011 [1961]; see Breheny , 270 AD2d at 927 ), and inasmuch as defendant failed to make an offer of proof demonstrating that the proposed affirmative defense applied in this case ( see generally | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Hazzard
green
1 sentence2023Although defendant inquired regarding the defense, we conclude that "defendant failed to provide the court with an adequate factual basis for his proposed" defense ( People v Breheny , 270 AD2d 926, 927 [4th Dept 2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 851 [2000]). "[O]ffers of proof must be made clearly and unambiguously" ( People v Williams , 6 NY2d 18, 23 [1959], cert denied 361 US 920 [1959], rearg denied 10 NY2d 1011 [1961]; see Breheny , 270 AD2d at 927 ), and inasmuch as defendant failed to make an offer of proof demonstrating that the proposed affirmative defense applied in this case ( see generally | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Goodarzi v. City of New York
green
1 sentence2021As the plaintiff would not be prejudiced or surprised by the assertion of this proposed affirmative defense, and it is not palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit, leave to amend the Good-Will defendants' answer to assert it should have been granted ( see CPLR 3025[b]; National Recruiting Group, LLC v Bern Ripka LLP , 183 AD3d 831, 833 ; Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Jean-Baptiste , 178 AD3d 883 , 886; Reese v Jahan Contr. , 120 AD3d 1399, 1400 ; Goodarzi v City of New York , 217 AD2d 683, 684 ). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Unger v. Leviton
green
1 sentence2021However, contrary to the appellants' contention, the Supreme Court providently, in effect, denied that branch of the motion which was for leave to amend their answer to assert the affirmative defense of lack of standing and the remaining proposed affirmative defenses, as the proposed affirmative defense of lack of standing was already asserted in the answer, and the remaining affirmative defenses were palpably insufficient ( see Reese v Jahan Contr. , 120 AD3d 1399, 1400 ; Unger v Leviton , 25 AD3d 689, 690 ). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
National Recruiting Group, LLC v. Bern Ripka LLP
green
1 sentence2021As the plaintiff would not be prejudiced or surprised by the assertion of this proposed affirmative defense, and it is not palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit, leave to amend the Good-Will defendants' answer to assert it should have been granted ( see CPLR 3025[b]; National Recruiting Group, LLC v Bern Ripka LLP , 183 AD3d 831, 833 ; Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Jean-Baptiste , 178 AD3d 883 , 886; Reese v Jahan Contr. , 120 AD3d 1399, 1400 ; Goodarzi v City of New York , 217 AD2d 683, 684 ). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
U.S. Bank, National Ass'n v. Sharif
green
1 sentence2018Here, in opposition to that branch of the defendant's motion which was for leave to amend his answer to add the affirmative defense of lack of standing, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of any prejudice or surprise that would result from the amendment, or that the proposed affirmative defense was palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit ( see Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v. Cox , 110 AD3d 760 ; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Sharif , 89 AD3d at 724-725 ; Pirrotti & Pirrotti, LLP v Estate of Warm , 8 AD3d 545 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas v. Cox
green
1 sentence2018Here, in opposition to that branch of the defendant's motion which was for leave to amend his answer to add the affirmative defense of lack of standing, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of any prejudice or surprise that would result from the amendment, or that the proposed affirmative defense was palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit ( see Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v. Cox , 110 AD3d 760 ; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Sharif , 89 AD3d at 724-725 ; Pirrotti & Pirrotti, LLP v Estate of Warm , 8 AD3d 545 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Guaman
green
1 sentence2018Here, in opposition to that branch of the defendant's motion which was for leave to amend his answer to add the affirmative defense of lack of standing, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of any prejudice or surprise that would result from the amendment, or that the proposed affirmative defense was palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit ( see Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v. Cox , 110 AD3d 760 ; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Sharif , 89 AD3d at 724-725 ; Pirrotti & Pirrotti, LLP v Estate of Warm , 8 AD3d 545 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Bernardi v. Spyratos green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Wolstencroft v. Sassower green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Hill v. 2016 Realty Associates green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| People v. Hills green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| People v. Borrero green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Bomar v. Lane neutral | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| People v. Coleman green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| People v. Lewis green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Fittipaldo v. Gal green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Gramatan Home Investors Corp. v. Lopez green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| F.J.W., Inc. v. Duke Equities, Inc. green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Naclerio Contracting Co. v. City of New York green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| People v. Duran neutral | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Sharapata v. Town of Islip green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Sharapata v. Town of Islip green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Spier v. Barker green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Caulfield v. Elmhurst Contracting Co. green | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| Caulfield v. Elmhurst Contracting Co. neutral | 1 | 1957–1957 |
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.