fact-intensive inquiry in New York

2024In opposition, plaintiff argues that a determination of whether in pari delicto should apply here requires a fact-intensive inquiry and is therefore premature in this motion, citing Stokoe v Marcum & Kleigman LLP ( 135 AD3d 645, 645 [1st Dept 2016]).

2024In opposition, plaintiff argues that a determination of whether in pari delicto should apply here requires a fact-intensive inquiry and is therefore premature in this motion, citing Stakoe v Marcum & Kleigman LLP ( 135 AD3d 645,645 [1st Dept 2016]).

2024Whether or not defendants may ultimately be able to demonstrate that they are entitled to immunity, it is premature to deem the analysis completed at this juncture ( see Miglino v Bally Total Fitness of Greater N.Y., Inc ., 20 NY3d 342, 351 [2013]; Grassi & Co., CPAS, P.C. v Honka , 180 AD3d 564, 565 [1st Dept 2020]).

2024Whether or not defendants may ultimately be able to demonstrate that they are entitled to immunity, it is premature to deem the analysis completed at this juncture ( see Miglino v Bally Total Fitness of Greater N.Y., Inc ., 20 NY3d 342, 351 [2013]; Grassi & Co., CPAS, P.C. v Honka , 180 AD3d 564 , 565 [1st Dept 2020]).

2024However, as the Court of Appeals observed in Kirschner , "in pari delicto may be resolved on the pleadings . . . in an appropriate case" ( Kirschner at 459, n 3 ).

2024However, as the Court of Appeals observed in Kirschner , "in pari delicto may be resolved on the pleadings . . . in an appropriate case" ( Kirschner at 459, n 3 ).

2016Commn., 56 NY2d 213, 219 [1982]; see Curtis v Complete Foam Insulation Corp., 116 AD2d 907, 909 [1986]), and have developed a fact-intensive inquiry to determine whether specific commercial information is a bona fide trade secret worthy of such protection.

2016Commn., 56 NY2d 213, 219 [1982]; see Curtis v Complete Foam Insulation Corp., 116 AD2d 907, 909 [1986]), and have developed a fact-intensive inquiry to determine whether specific commercial information is a bona fide trade secret worthy of such protection.

2016Commn., 56 NY2d 213, 219 [1982]; see Curtis v Complete Foam Insulation Corp., 116 AD2d 907, 909 [1986]), and have developed a fact-intensive inquiry to determine whether specific commercial information is a bona fide trade secret worthy of such protection.

2016Commn., 56 NY2d 213, 219 [1982]; see Curtis v Complete Foam Insulation Corp., 116 AD2d 907, 909 [1986]), and have developed a fact-intensive inquiry to determine whether specific commercial information is a bona fide trade secret worthy of such protection.

2013Research v Savannah Coll. of Art & Design, 244 F3d 521, 531 [6th Cir 2001]).

2013Research v Savannah Coll. of Art & Design, 244 F3d 521, 531 [6th Cir 2001]).

2024Whether or not defendants may ultimately be able to demonstrate that they are entitled to immunity, it is premature to deem the analysis completed at this juncture ( see Miglino v Bally Total Fitness of Greater N.Y., Inc ., 20 NY3d 342, 351 [2013]; Grassi & Co., CPAS, P.C. v Honka , 180 AD3d 564, 565 [1st Dept 2020]).

2024Whether or not defendants may ultimately be able to demonstrate that they are entitled to immunity, it is premature to deem the analysis completed at this juncture ( see Miglino v Bally Total Fitness of Greater N.Y., Inc ., 20 NY3d 342, 351 [2013]; Grassi & Co., CPAS, P.C. v Honka , 180 AD3d 564 , 565 [1st Dept 2020]).

2026Delay in “seeking to amend a pleading does not warrant denial of the motion, in the absence of prejudice.” Cherebin v. Empress Ambulance Serv., Inc., 43 A.D.3d 364, 365 (1st Dept. 2007).

2025When the existence of an intimate relationship is in dispute, or the record is insufficient to permit determination as a matter of law, Family Court should conduct a hearing before dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction ( see Matter of De Phillips v Perez , 237 AD3d 1198 , 1200 [2d Dept 2025]; Matter of Minor v Birkenmeyer , 200 AD3d 1044, 1045-1046 [2d Dept 2021]; Matter of Arita v Goodman , 132 AD3d 1108, 1110-1111 [3d Dept 2015]).

2025When the existence of an intimate relationship is in dispute, or the record is insufficient to permit determination as a matter of law, Family Court should conduct a hearing before dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction ( see Matter of De Phillips v Perez , 237 AD3d 1198, 1200 [2d Dept 2025]; Matter of Minor v Birkenmeyer , 200 AD3d 1044, 1045-1046 [2d Dept 2021]; Matter of Arita v Goodman , 132 AD3d 1108, 1110-1111 [3d Dept 2015]).

2025Whether an intimate relationship exists is a fact-intensive inquiry to be resolved on a case-by-case basis ( see Matter of Kristina L. v Elizabeth M. , 156 AD3d at 1163-1164 ; see also Matter of Hamrahi v Brock , 176 AD3d 1208 , 1209 [2d Dept 2019]).

2025Whether an intimate relationship exists is a fact-intensive inquiry to be resolved on a case-by-case basis ( see Matter of Kristina L. v Elizabeth M. , 156 AD3d at 1163-1164; see also Matter of Hamrahi v Brock , 176 AD3d 1208, 1209 [2d Dept 2019]).

2025When the existence of an intimate relationship is in dispute, or the record is insufficient to permit determination as a matter of law, Family Court should conduct a hearing before dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction ( see Matter of De Phillips v Perez , 237 AD3d 1198 , 1200 [2d Dept 2025]; Matter of Minor v Birkenmeyer , 200 AD3d 1044, 1045-1046 [2d Dept 2021]; Matter of Arita v Goodman , 132 AD3d 1108, 1110-1111 [3d Dept 2015]).

2025When the existence of an intimate relationship is in dispute, or the record is insufficient to permit determination as a matter of law, Family Court should conduct a hearing before dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction ( see Matter of De Phillips v Perez , 237 AD3d 1198, 1200 [2d Dept 2025]; Matter of Minor v Birkenmeyer , 200 AD3d 1044, 1045-1046 [2d Dept 2021]; Matter of Arita v Goodman , 132 AD3d 1108, 1110-1111 [3d Dept 2015]).

2025Bank, 51 NY2d 411, 415 [1980]; Holder v Jacob , 231 AD3d 78, 88 [1st Dept 2024]).

2025Bank, 51 NY2d 411, 415 [1980]; Holder v Jacob , 231 AD3d 78 , 88 [1st Dept 2024]).

2024Ultimately, "[w]hether a person is a controlling person is a fact-intensive inquiry, and generally should not be resolved on a motion to dismiss" ( Katz v. [*8]Image Innovations Holdings, Inc. , 542 F. Supp. 2d 269, 276 [S.D.NY 2008]).

2022Board's findings of fact which, including the ultimate fact of arising out of and in the course [of employment], must stand unless erroneous in law and regardless of whether conflicting evidence is available" ( Matter of Junium v Bazzini Co. , 86 AD2d 690, 690 [1982] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).

2012Rather, a court engages in a fact-intensive inquiry to determine whether the child’s physical or emotional health is at risk (see Matter of Martha A. [Diana C.], 75 AD3d 476, 477 [2010], citing Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357 [2004]).

2011School Dist., 34 AD3d 999, 1000 [2006]).

2010(See Bank Hapoalim [Switzerland] Ltd. v Banca Intesa S.p.A., 22 Misc 3d 1104[A] , 2008 NY Slip Op 52596[U] , *4 [Sup Ct, NY County 2008] [“(W)hether justifiable reliance exists presents an issue of fact”; “A party may be found to have reasonably relied on another party’s written representations, if the documents would not, on their face, have alerted the party to potential fraud”]; JP Morgan Chase Bank v Winnick, 350 F Supp 2d 393, 409 [SD NY 2004] [“(I)t cannot be argued that the Banks failed to bargain for adequate safeguards to establish, at least initially, the basis for their reliance on

2010Eisen, P.C., 276 AD2d 78 , 85 [1st Dept 2000].) “[A] plaintiff . . . need only plead that he relied on misrepresentations made by the defendant.” (Knight Sec. v Fiduciary Trust Co., 5 AD3d 172, 173 [1st Dept 2004].) Reasonable reliance is a fact-intensive inquiry, which should be reserved for a trier of fact.

2010(See Bank Hapoalim [Switzerland] Ltd. v Banca Intesa S.p.A., 22 Misc 3d 1104[A] , 2008 NY Slip Op 52596[U] , *4 [Sup Ct, NY County 2008] [“(W)hether justifiable reliance exists presents an issue of fact”; “A party may be found to have reasonably relied on another party’s written representations, if the documents would not, on their face, have alerted the party to potential fraud”]; JP Morgan Chase Bank v Winnick, 350 F Supp 2d 393, 409 [SD NY 2004] [“(I)t cannot be argued that the Banks failed to bargain for adequate safeguards to establish, at least initially, the basis for their reliance on

2010(See Bank Hapoalim [Switzerland] Ltd. v Banca Intesa S.p.A., 22 Misc 3d 1104[A] , 2008 NY Slip Op 52596[U] , *4 [Sup Ct, NY County 2008] [“(W)hether justifiable reliance exists presents an issue of fact”; “A party may be found to have reasonably relied on another party’s written representations, if the documents would not, on their face, have alerted the party to potential fraud”]; JP Morgan Chase Bank v Winnick, 350 F Supp 2d 393, 409 [SD NY 2004] [“(I)t cannot be argued that the Banks failed to bargain for adequate safeguards to establish, at least initially, the basis for their reliance on

2004Section 1012 (h), moreover, sets forth specific factors, evidence of which may demonstrate “substantially diminished psychological or intellectual functioning” (see also Matter of Sayeh R., 91 NY2d 306, 314-316 [1997]; Matter of Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs. [Dante M.] v Denise J., 87 NY2d 73, 78-79 [1995]).

2004Section 1012 (h), moreover, sets forth specific factors, evidence of which may demonstrate “substantially diminished psychological or intellectual functioning” (see also Matter of Sayeh R., 91 NY2d 306, 314-316 [1997]; Matter of Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs. [Dante M.] v Denise J., 87 NY2d 73, 78-79 [1995]).

2004Corp. v Knoud, 98 AD2d 713, 713-714 [2d Dept 1983].) “Whether a sale was commercially reasonable is, like other questions about ‘reasonableness’, a fact-intensive inquiry; no magic set of procedures will immunize a sale from scrutiny.” (Matter of Excello Press, Inc., 890 F2d 896, 905 [7th Cir 1989] [applying New York law]; see also Federal Deposit Ins.

2004Corp. v Forte, 144 AD2d 627, 629 [2d Dept 1988].) Here, Clover Commercial sold Mr. Coxall’s Lexus in a private sale to the dealer from whom Mr. Coxall had purchased it.

1998In this case, as in excessive force cases generally, “the fact intensive inquiry of whether a particular use of force was reasonable is best left for a jury to decide” (Landy v Irizarry, 884 F Supp 788, 797 [SD NY]).