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.
168 New York opinions name it 10 courts 1973–2026 19 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 |
|---|---|---|
Smith & Wesson Corp. v. City of Garygreen2 sentences2012Corp., 940 A2d 163, 168 [2008], cert denied 556 US 1104 [2009]; Smith & Wesson Corp. v City of Gary, 875 NE2d 422, 429-430 [Ind Ct App 2007]). 2012Corp., 940 A2d 163, 168 [2008], cert denied 556 US 1104 [2009]; Smith & Wesson Corp. v City of Gary, 875 NE2d 422, 429-430 [Ind Ct App 2007]). | 3 | 3 |
Leon v. Martinezgreen2 sentences2018Nevertheless, accepting the allegations in the petition/complaint as true, and noting the absence of documentary proof conclusively establishing a defense to them ( see Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d at 87-88 ), petitioner articulated a cognizable claim. 2016However, when construing the pleadings liberally, as we *565 must on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]), we find that the complaint sufficiently states a cognizable claim that the employer defendants were negligent in hiring, training and supervising their employees, including defendant Ray (see Pickering v State of New York, 30 AD3d 393, 394 [2d Dept 2006]). | 2 | 6 |
Destiny USA Holdings, LLC v. Citigroup Global Markets Realty Corp.green2 sentences2016Realty Corp., 69 AD3d 212, 216-217 [2009]). 2016Realty Corp., 69 AD3d 212, 216-217 [2009]). | 2 | 3 |
Bousley v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2014That Court explained that “ ‘actual innocence’ means factual innocence, not mere legal insufficiency of evidence of guilt (see Bousley v United States, 523 US 614, 623-624 [1998]), and must be based upon reliable evidence which was not presented at trial (see Schlup v Delo, 513 US [298,] 324)” (id. at 23 [emphasis added]). 2014That Court explained that “ ‘actual innocence’ means factual innocence, not mere legal insufficiency of evidence of guilt (see Bousley v United States, 523 US 614, 623-624 [1998]), and must be based upon reliable evidence which was not presented at trial (see Schlup v Delo, 513 US [298,] 324)” (id. at 23 [emphasis added]). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Hamiltongreen2 sentences2014To the extent that defendant contends that he has a cognizable claim pursuant to CPL 440.10 (1) (h), i.e., he is entitled to a hearing to determine whether his constitutional rights have been violated, we note that, as a matter of first impression at the appellate level, the Second Department has recognized a “freestanding claim of actual innocence . . . rooted in . . . the constitutional rights to substantive and procedural due process, and the constitutional right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment” (People v Hamilton, 115 AD3d 12, 21 [2014]). 2014To the extent that defendant contends that he has a cognizable claim pursuant to CPL 440.10 (1) (h), i.e., he is entitled to a hearing to determine whether his constitutional rights have been violated, we note that, as a matter of first impression at the appellate level, the Second Department has recognized a “freestanding claim of actual innocence . . . rooted in . . . the constitutional rights to substantive and procedural due process, and the constitutional right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment” (People v Hamilton, 115 AD3d 12, 21 [2014]). | 2 | 3 |
District of Columbia v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.green2 sentences2012Corp., 940 A2d 163, 168 [2008], cert denied 556 US 1104 [2009]; Smith & Wesson Corp. v City of Gary, 875 NE2d 422, 429-430 [Ind Ct App 2007]). 2012Corp., 940 A2d 163, 168 [2008], cert denied 556 US 1104 [2009]; Smith & Wesson Corp. v City of Gary, 875 NE2d 422, 429-430 [Ind Ct App 2007]). | 2 | 3 |
Lama Holding Co. v. Smith Barney Inc.green2 sentences2017Plaintiff pleaded a cognizable claim for fraudulent inducement based on the first alleged misrepresentations (Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney, 88 NY2d 413, 421 [1996]; see also GoSmile, Inc. v Levine, 81 AD3d 77, 81 [1st Dept 2010], lv dismissed 17 NY3d 782 [2011]). 2005On the other hand, the allegations of tortious interference with contract set forth a cognizable claim, for which malice is not a necessary element (see Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney, 88 NY2d 413, 424 [1996]; Snyder v Sony Music Entertainment, 252 AD2d 294, 299 [1999]). | 2 | 2 |
Rudolf v. Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauergreen2 sentences2014Turning to defendant’s summary judgment motion as against plaintiff, in addition to showing an attorney-client relationship, a legal malpractice claim also requires a “demonstrat[ion] that the attorney ‘failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession’ and that the attorney’s breach of this duty proximately caused [the] plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages” (Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007], quoting McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301 [2002]; accord Geraci v Munnelly, 85 2014Turning to defendant’s summary judgment motion as against plaintiff, in addition to showing an attorney-client relationship, a legal malpractice claim also requires a “demonstrat[ion] that the attorney ‘failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession’ and that the attorney’s breach of this duty proximately caused [the] plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages” (Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007], quoting McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301 [2002]; accord Geraci v Munnelly, 85 | 2 | 2 |
Geraci v. Munnellygreen2 sentences2014Turning to defendant’s summary judgment motion as against plaintiff, in addition to showing an attorney-client relationship, a legal malpractice claim also requires a “demonstrat[ion] that the attorney ‘failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession’ and that the attorney’s breach of this duty proximately caused [the] plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages” (Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007], quoting McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301 [2002]; accord Geraci v Munnelly, 85 2014Turning to defendant’s summary judgment motion as against plaintiff, in addition to showing an attorney-client relationship, a legal malpractice claim also requires a “demonstrat[ion] that the attorney ‘failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession’ and that the attorney’s breach of this duty proximately caused [the] plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages” (Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007], quoting McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301 [2002]; accord Geraci v Munnelly, 85 | 2 | 2 |
Meralla v. Goldenberggreen2 sentences2014Turning to defendant’s summary judgment motion as against plaintiff, in addition to showing an attorney-client relationship, a legal malpractice claim also requires a “demonstrat[ion] that the attorney ‘failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession’ and that the attorney’s breach of this duty proximately caused [the] plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages” (Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007], quoting McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301 [2002]; accord Geraci v Munnelly, 85 2014Turning to defendant’s summary judgment motion as against plaintiff, in addition to showing an attorney-client relationship, a legal malpractice claim also requires a “demonstrat[ion] that the attorney ‘failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession’ and that the attorney’s breach of this duty proximately caused [the] plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages” (Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007], quoting McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301 [2002]; accord Geraci v Munnelly, 85 | 2 | 2 |
McCoy v. Feinmangreen2 sentences2014Turning to defendant’s summary judgment motion as against plaintiff, in addition to showing an attorney-client relationship, a legal malpractice claim also requires a “demonstrat[ion] that the attorney ‘failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession’ and that the attorney’s breach of this duty proximately caused [the] plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages” (Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007], quoting McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301 [2002]; accord Geraci v Munnelly, 85 2014Turning to defendant’s summary judgment motion as against plaintiff, in addition to showing an attorney-client relationship, a legal malpractice claim also requires a “demonstrat[ion] that the attorney ‘failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession’ and that the attorney’s breach of this duty proximately caused [the] plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages” (Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007], quoting McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301 [2002]; accord Geraci v Munnelly, 85 | 2 | 2 |
Dealy-Doe-Eyes Maddux v. Schurgreen2 sentences2014Turning to defendant’s summary judgment motion as against plaintiff, in addition to showing an attorney-client relationship, a legal malpractice claim also requires a “demonstrat[ion] that the attorney ‘failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession’ and that the attorney’s breach of this duty proximately caused [the] plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages” (Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007], quoting McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301 [2002]; accord Geraci v Munnelly, 85 2014Turning to defendant’s summary judgment motion as against plaintiff, in addition to showing an attorney-client relationship, a legal malpractice claim also requires a “demonstrat[ion] that the attorney ‘failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession’ and that the attorney’s breach of this duty proximately caused [the] plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages” (Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007], quoting McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301 [2002]; accord Geraci v Munnelly, 85 | 2 | 2 |
21st Century Diamond, LLC v. Allfield Trading, LLCgreen2 sentences2013With respect to third-party plaintiffs’ second motion to amend the complaint, we noted in a prior decision in this action that the third-party complaint, liberally construed, states a cognizable claim against Exelco, as majority member of 21st Century, for oppression of third-party plaintiff Allfield Trading, LLC, as minority member, “by freezing the latter out of the business and depriving it of the benefit of its interest” (21st Century Diamond, LLC v Allfield Trading, LLC, 88 AD3d 558, 559 [1st Dept 2011]), and we upheld third-party plaintiffs’ claims for breach of the implied covenant of g 2013With respect to third-party plaintiffs’ second motion to amend the complaint, we noted in a prior decision in this action that the third-party complaint, liberally construed, states a cognizable claim against Exelco, as majority member of 21st Century, for oppression of third-party plaintiff Allfield Trading, LLC, as minority member, “by freezing the latter out of the business and depriving it of the benefit of its interest” (21st Century Diamond, LLC v Allfield Trading, LLC, 88 AD3d 558, 559 [1st Dept 2011]), and we upheld third-party plaintiffs’ claims for breach of the implied covenant of g | 2 | 2 |
Armstrong v. Simon & Schuster, Inc.green2 sentences2006The slander and business defamation allegations, based on statements made by defendants’ representatives to the press, are reasonably susceptible of defamatory connotation (see Armstrong v Simon & Schuster, 85 NY2d 373, 380 [1995]), and themselves state a cognizable claim for relief. 2005The slander and business defamation allegations, based on statements made by defendants’ representative to the press, are reasonably susceptible of defamatory connotation (see Armstrong v Simon & Schuster, 85 NY2d 373, 380 [1995]), and themselves state a cognizable claim for relief. | 2 | 2 |
Fischer v. Maloneygreen2 sentences2024After acknowledging that a claim for IIED is cognizable in New York and concluding that the offensive conduct alleged by the plaintiff (the defendant's commencement of an unfounded defamation action against the plaintiff to malign, harass and intimidate the plaintiff), the Court stated: " it may be questioned whether the doctrine of liability for intentional infliction of extreme emotional distress should be applicable where the conduct complained of falls well within the ambit of other traditional tort liability" ( Fischer , 43 NY2d at 557-558 [emphasis added]). 1990The plaintiff’s attempt for the first time on appeal to characterize his second cause of action as sounding in intentional infliction of emotional distress or in prima facie tort is without merit since the allegations in the complaint cannot be read as supporting either theory of liability (see, Freihofer v Hearst Corp., 65 NY2d 135 ; Fischer v Maloney, 43 NY2d 553 ; Burns Jackson Miller Summit & Spitzer v Lindner, 59 NY2d 314 ). | 1 | 2 |
| Walden v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institutegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Wolowitzgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. General Motors Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| People v. American Motor Club, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Ernest L. v. Charlton Schoolgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Dodson v. Town Bd. of the Town of Rotterdamgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Manganiello v. City of New Yorkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Martinez v. City of Schenectadygreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re the Estate of Meadgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Pope Invs. II LLC v. Belmont Partners, LLCgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Paramount Film Distributing Corp. v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Colon v. City of New Yorkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Miglino v. Bally Total Fitness of Greater New York, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Hall v. City of Buffalogreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Mooregreen | 1 | 1 |
| Vogt v. Witmeyergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Latham v. Father Divinegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Brasseur v. Speranzagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Veritas Capital Management, L.L.C. v. Campbellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Alvord & Swift v. Stewart M. Muller Construction Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Johnson City Central School District v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Marylandgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Har Enterprises v. Town of Brookhavengreen | 1 | 1 |
| Braddock v. Braddockgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gernatt Asphalt Products, Inc. v. Town of Sardiniagreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rovello v. Orofino Realty Co.
green
2 sentences2014In making a determination whether the petition sets forth a cognizable claim, evidentiary material may be considered to remedy defects in the petition (see Dana v Shopping Time Corp., 76 AD3d 992 [2d Dept 2010]; Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d at 636 ). 2006This, however, is not the test established by the Court of Appeals in Rovello ( 40 NY2d 633 [1976]), which warrants dismissal only if the complaint fails to set forth a cognizable claim on its face (see Siegel, NY Prac § 265, at 395 [2d ed]). | 4 | 1988–2014 |
Bruno v. Trus Joist a Weyerhaeuser Business
green
2 sentences2016Furthermore, as the complaint sufficiently alleges a cognizable claim of accounting malpractice ( see, Bruno v. Trus Joist a Weyerhaeuser Bus., 87 AD3d 670 [2011]; Kristina Denise Enter., Inc. v. Arnold, 41 AD3d 788 [2007]; Estate of Burke v Repetti & Co., 255 AD2d 483 [1998], the branch of the motion which is to dismiss the ninth cause of action, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), is denied. 2016Furthermore, as the complaint sufficiently alleges a cognizable claim of accounting malpractice (see Bruno v Trus Joist a Weyerhaeuser Bus., 87 AD3d 670 [2011]; Kristina Denise Enters., Inc. v Arnold, 41 AD3d 788 [2007]; Estate of Burke v Repetti & Co., 255 AD2d 483 [1998]), the branch of the motion which is to dismiss the ninth cause of action, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), is denied. | 3 | 2014–2016 |
Kristina Denise Enterprises, Inc. v. Arnold
green
2 sentences2016Furthermore, as the complaint sufficiently alleges a cognizable claim of accounting malpractice ( see, Bruno v. Trus Joist a Weyerhaeuser Bus., 87 AD3d 670 [2011]; Kristina Denise Enter., Inc. v. Arnold, 41 AD3d 788 [2007]; Estate of Burke v Repetti & Co., 255 AD2d 483 [1998], the branch of the motion which is to dismiss the ninth cause of action, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), is denied. 2016Furthermore, as the complaint sufficiently alleges a cognizable claim of accounting malpractice (see Bruno v Trus Joist a Weyerhaeuser Bus., 87 AD3d 670 [2011]; Kristina Denise Enters., Inc. v Arnold, 41 AD3d 788 [2007]; Estate of Burke v Repetti & Co., 255 AD2d 483 [1998]), the branch of the motion which is to dismiss the ninth cause of action, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), is denied. | 3 | 2014–2016 |
Estate of Burke v. Peter J. Repetti & Co.
green
2 sentences2016Furthermore, as the complaint sufficiently alleges a cognizable claim of accounting malpractice ( see, Bruno v. Trus Joist a Weyerhaeuser Bus., 87 AD3d 670 [2011]; Kristina Denise Enter., Inc. v. Arnold, 41 AD3d 788 [2007]; Estate of Burke v Repetti & Co., 255 AD2d 483 [1998], the branch of the motion which is to dismiss the ninth cause of action, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), is denied. 2016Furthermore, as the complaint sufficiently alleges a cognizable claim of accounting malpractice (see Bruno v Trus Joist a Weyerhaeuser Bus., 87 AD3d 670 [2011]; Kristina Denise Enters., Inc. v Arnold, 41 AD3d 788 [2007]; Estate of Burke v Repetti & Co., 255 AD2d 483 [1998]), the branch of the motion which is to dismiss the ninth cause of action, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), is denied. | 3 | 2014–2016 |
Ileto v. Glock, Inc.
green
2 sentences2012That exception is often referred to as the “ ‘predicate exception,’ because a plaintiff not only must present a cognizable claim, [but] he or she also must allege a knowing violation of a ‘predicate statute,’ ” i.e., a state or federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of firearms (Ileto, 565 F3d at 1132 ; see District of Columbia v Beretta US.A. 2012That exception is often referred to as the “ ‘predicate exception,’ because a plaintiff not only must present a cognizable claim, [but] he or she also must allege a knowing violation of a ‘predicate statute,’ ” i.e., a state or federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of firearms (Ileto, 565 F3d at 1132 ; see District of Columbia v Beretta US.A. | 3 | 2012–2012 |
Hurst v. Titus
green
2 sentences2001While a child may not sue a parent for negligent supervision (see, Holodook v Spencer, 36 NY2d 35 ), the infant plaintiff possesses a cognizable claim that his injuries were proximately caused by the defendant’s alleged breach of a duty of care owed to the world at large, one that exists outside of, and apart from, a family relationship (see, Leek v McGlone, 140 AD2d 413 ; Semmens v Hopper, 128 AD2d 767 ; Grivas v Grivas, 113 AD2d 264 ; Hurst v Titus, 77 AD2d 157 ; Goedkoop v Ward Pavement Corp., 51 AD2d 542 ). 1983A jury could find that this separate act of negligence was a substantial and proximate cause of the injuries (see Hurst v Titus, supra; Muhaymin v Negron, supra; see, also, Derdiarian v Felix Contr. | 3 | 1982–2001 |
People v. Latouche
green
2 sentences2025One of the cases, Y.A. v Conair Corp. , 154 AD3d 611 [1st Dept 2017], has no mention of time-barred claims, relevant or otherwise, and is instead a First Department case affirming the denial of a defendant's CPLR 3025 (b) motion to amend their answer due to insufficiency to state a cognizable claim. 2025One of the cases, Y.A. v Conair Corp. , 154 AD3d 611 [1st Dept 2017], has no mention of time-barred claims, relevant or otherwise, and is instead a First Department case affirming the denial of a defendant's CPLR 3025 (b) motion to amend their answer due to insufficiency to state a cognizable claim. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Greenberg v. Montefiore New Rochelle Hosp.
neutral
2 sentences2022For the reasons set forth in Greenberg v Montefiore New Rochelle Hosp. ( 205 AD3d 47 [1st Dept 2022]), plaintiff has a cognizable claim to pursue a medical malpractice action against these defendants for pain and suffering of the decedent on the theory that their failure to follow decedent's directives in his living will and health care proxy was a departure from the standard of care, and a proximate cause of his pain and suffering. 2022For the reasons set forth in Greenberg v Montefiore New Rochelle Hosp. ( 205 AD3d 47 [1st Dept 2022]), plaintiff has a cognizable claim to pursue a medical malpractice action against these defendants for pain and suffering of the decedent on the theory that their failure to follow decedent's directives in his living will and health care proxy was a departure from the standard of care, and a proximate cause of his pain and suffering. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Spiegel v. Goodman
green
2 sentences2017Here the proposed counterclaims, as pleaded, state nothing other than a claim that plaintiff negligently supervised her own children with respect to a “common, daily household hazard[ ]” (Zikely v Zikely, 98 AD2d 815 , 816 [2d Dept 1983], affd 62 NY2d 907 [1984]), which, as the Second Department has held in very similar circumstances, does not implicate any duty owed to the public at large, and is insufficient to state a cognizable claim under Holodook (Siragusa v Conair Corp., 153 AD3d 1376 [2d Dept 2017]; see Wheeler v Sears Roebuck & Co., 37 AD3d 710, 711-712 [2d Dept 2007]). 1992Significantly, unlike traditional negligent supervision cases, the case before us does not require judicial intervention into the subjective factors involving parental child care and supervision (cf ., Zikely v Zikely, 98 AD2d 815 , affd 62 NY2d 907 [mother, who allowed unsupervised child to fall into bathtub filled with scalding water while preparing child’s bath, protected from liability]). | 2 | 1992–2017 |
Guggenheimer v. Ginzburg
green
2 sentences2017In support of their motion, the appellants failed to demonstrate that a material fact claimed by the Curlins was not a fact at all or that no significant dispute exists regarding it (see Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d at 275 ). 1986On such a motion, the sole function is to determine, from the four corners of the pleading, whether a cognizable claim for relief exists (Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 274-275 ; Foley v D’Agostino, 21 AD2d 60, 64-65 ). | 2 | 1986–2017 |
Zikely v. Zikely
green
2 sentences2017Here the proposed counterclaims, as pleaded, state nothing other than a claim that plaintiff negligently supervised her own children with respect to a “common, daily household hazard[ ]” (Zikely v Zikely, 98 AD2d 815 , 816 [2d Dept 1983], affd 62 NY2d 907 [1984]), which, as the Second Department has held in very similar circumstances, does not implicate any duty owed to the public at large, and is insufficient to state a cognizable claim under Holodook (Siragusa v Conair Corp., 153 AD3d 1376 [2d Dept 2017]; see Wheeler v Sears Roebuck & Co., 37 AD3d 710, 711-712 [2d Dept 2007]). 1992Significantly, unlike traditional negligent supervision cases, the case before us does not require judicial intervention into the subjective factors involving parental child care and supervision (cf ., Zikely v Zikely, 98 AD2d 815 , affd 62 NY2d 907 [mother, who allowed unsupervised child to fall into bathtub filled with scalding water while preparing child’s bath, protected from liability]). | 2 | 1992–2017 |
Tabner v. Drake
green
2 sentences2014Turning to defendant’s summary judgment motion as against plaintiff, in addition to showing an attorney-client relationship, a legal malpractice claim also requires a “demonstrat[ion] that the attorney ‘failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession’ and that the attorney’s breach of this duty proximately caused [the] plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages” (Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007], quoting McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301 [2002]; accord Geraci v Munnelly, 85 2014Turning to defendant’s summary judgment motion as against plaintiff, in addition to showing an attorney-client relationship, a legal malpractice claim also requires a “demonstrat[ion] that the attorney ‘failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession’ and that the attorney’s breach of this duty proximately caused [the] plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages” (Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007], quoting McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301 [2002]; accord Geraci v Munnelly, 85 | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Holodook v. Spencer
green
2 sentences2001While a child may not sue a parent for negligent supervision (see, Holodook v Spencer, 36 NY2d 35 ), the infant plaintiff possesses a cognizable claim that his injuries were proximately caused by the defendant’s alleged breach of a duty of care owed to the world at large, one that exists outside of, and apart from, a family relationship (see, Leek v McGlone, 140 AD2d 413 ; Semmens v Hopper, 128 AD2d 767 ; Grivas v Grivas, 113 AD2d 264 ; Hurst v Titus, 77 AD2d 157 ; Goedkoop v Ward Pavement Corp., 51 AD2d 542 ). 1982Although Special Term was correct that paragraph 40 of plaintiffs’ amended complaint alleging negligent supervision of the infant plaintiff by defendant Lynch is not actionable (see Holodook v Spencer, 36 NY2d 35 ), paragraph 38, alleging that defendant Lynch’s acts created the hazard leading to the infant plaintiff’s injuries, is a separate and cognizable claim. | 2 | 1982–2001 |
Sarra v. Hankewycz
green
2 sentences2000When read in conjunction with the evidentiary record, the plaintiffs amended complaint fails to allege any material facts giving rise to a cognizable claim for legal malpractice (see, Kantrowitz & Goldhamer v Geller, 265 AD2d 529 ; Sei Young Choi v Dworkin, 230 AD2d 780, 782 ). 1999When read in conjunction with the evidentiary record, including a stipulation of settlement entered into in open court, the defendant’s counterclaim fails to allege any material facts giving rise to a cognizable claim for legal malpractice (se e, Sei Young Choi v Dworkin, 230 AD2d 780, 782 ). | 2 | 1999–2000 |
Ryan v. Morse Diesel, Inc.
green
2 sentences1999With respect to plaintiffs’ Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, the court reasoned: “the grating was permanent and not temporary in nature, thereby precluding consideration of it as the functional equivalent of a scaffold or other statutorily enumerated safety device or as a tool used in the performance of Brennan’s work (see, e.g., Ryan v Morse Diesel, 98 AD2d 615, 616 ). 1999With respect to plaintiffs’ Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, the court reasoned: “the grating was permanent and not temporary in nature, thereby precluding consideration of it as the functional equivalent of a scaffold or other statutorily enumerated safety device or as a tool used in the performance of Brennan’s work (see, e.g., Ryan v Morse Diesel, 98 AD2d 615, 616 ). | 2 | 1999–1999 |
| Howell v. New York Post Co. green | 2 | 1997–1998 |
| Davis v. State green | 2 | 1990–1996 |
| Gelbman v. Gelbman green | 2 | 1985–1992 |
| Credit Alliance Corp. v. Arthur Andersen & Co. green | 2 | 1985–1985 |
| In re Safran neutral | 2 | 1985–1985 |
| ATI, Inc. v. Ruder & Finn, Inc. green | 2 | 1982–1982 |
| Matter of Kerri W.S. v. Zucker green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Dana v. Shopping Time Corp. neutral | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Ross v. Louise Wise Services, Inc. green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Nieves v. City of New York neutral | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| In re the Accounting of Bankers Trust Co. green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Johnson v. City of New York green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| People v. Almodovar green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Parker v. Howard Avenue Realty, LLC neutral | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Weaver v. State green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Mombaccus Excavating, Inc. v. Town of Rochester green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Seneca Nation of Indians v. State of New York green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Awards. Com, LLC v. Kinko's, Inc. green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| 219 Broadway Corp. v. Alexander's, Inc. green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Carlson v. Am. Int'l Grp., Inc. green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.