20 New York opinions name it 4 courts 1974–2025 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re Smithgreen2 sentences2023In any event, neither erroneous advice from the Department[*2]( see Matter of Smith [Commissioner of Labor] , 98 AD3d 792 , 792-793 [3d Dept 2012]) nor confusion ( see Matter of Wilson [Commissioner of Labor] , 219 AD3d at 1628) excuse an untimely hearing request. 2013Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision (see Matter of Smith [Commissioner of Labor], 98 AD3d at 792-793; Matter of Crowley [Commissioner of Labor], 94 AD3d 1323, 1324 [2012]). | 2 | 3 |
Buran v. Coupalgreen2 sentences2024A claim in an amended pleading relates back to "the original pleading [if the original pleading gives] notice of the transactions, occurrences ... to be proved pursuant to the amended pleading." (CPLR 203 [fj.) "[T]he [relation back] doctrine enables a plaintiff to correct a pleading error - by adding either a new claim or a new party- after the statutory limitations period has expired." (Buran v Coupal, 87 NY2d 173, 177 [1995] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted].) Where an amendment "contains an untimely claim against a defendant who is already a party to the litigation, the relev 2017In other words, where, as here, a proposed amended complaint contains an untimely claim against a defendant who is already a party to the litigation, the relevant considerations are simply (1) whether the original complaint gave the defendant notice of the transactions or occurrences at issue and (2) whether there would be undue prejudice to the defendant if the amendment and relation back are permitted (see CPLR 203 [f]; 3025 [b]; see Buran, 87 NY2d at 178 ; Caffaro v Trayna, 35 NY2d 245, 251 [1974]). | 2 | 2 |
In re the Arbitration between SCM Corp. & Fisher Park Lane Co.green2 sentences2022An untimely claim could only serve as a defense that is "predicated on [an] act or fact growing out of the matter constituting the cause or ground of the action . . . . " ( Matter of SCM Corp. [Fisher Park Lane Co.] , 40 NY2d 788, 791 [1976]). 2022An untimely claim could only serve as a defense that is "predicated on [an] act or fact growing out of the matter constituting the cause or ground of the action . . . . " ( Matter of SCM Corp. [Fisher Park Lane Co.] , 40 NY2d 788, 791 [1976]). | 2 | 2 |
In re the Claim of Crowleygreen2 sentences2013Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision (see Matter of Smith [Commissioner of Labor], 98 AD3d at 792-793; Matter of Crowley [Commissioner of Labor], 94 AD3d 1323, 1324 [2012]). 2013Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision (see Matter of Smith [Commissioner of Labor], 98 AD3d at 792-793; Matter of Crowley [Commissioner of Labor], 94 AD3d 1323, 1324 [2012]). | 2 | 2 |
Kimso Apartments, LLC v. Mahesh Gandhigreen1 sentence2025Therefore, Doruk, as the guarantor, cannot be held personally liable for any of the tenant's obligations regarding the premises which accrued after May 31,2015. 1 "Under CPLR 3025, a party may amend a pleading 'at any time by leave of court' (CPLR 3025 [b]), 'before or after judgment to conform [the pleading] to the evidence' (CPLR 3025 [c])" (Kimso Apartments, LLC v Gandhi, 24 NY3d 403,411 [20141). "[W]here, as here, a proposed amended complaint contains an untimely claim against a defendant who is already a party to the litigation, the relevant considerations are simply (1) whether the origi | 1 | 1 |
In re the Claim of Greengreen1 sentence2023To the extent that claimant attributed his delay to pursuing legal advice, this did not result in any incapacity so as to excuse his failure to make a timely hearing request ( see Matter of Stylianou [Commissioner of Labor] , 257 AD2d 941, 941-942 [3d Dept 1999]; see also Matter of Green [Commissioner of Labor] , 87 AD3d 1222, 1222 [3d Dept 2011]). | 1 | 1 |
In re the Claim of Stylianougreen1 sentence2023To the extent that claimant attributed his delay to pursuing legal advice, this did not result in any incapacity so as to excuse his failure to make a timely hearing request ( see Matter of Stylianou [Commissioner of Labor] , 257 AD2d 941, 941-942 [3d Dept 1999]; see also Matter of Green [Commissioner of Labor] , 87 AD3d 1222, 1222 [3d Dept 2011]). | 1 | 1 |
Caffaro v. Traynagreen2 sentences2017In other words, where, as here, a proposed amended complaint contains an untimely claim against a defendant who is already a party to the litigation, the relevant considerations are simply (1) whether the original complaint gave the defendant notice of the transactions or occurrences at issue and (2) whether there would be undue prejudice to the defendant if the amendment and relation back are permitted ( see CPLR 203[f]; CPLR 3025[b]; see Buran , 87 NY2d at 178 ; Caffaro v Trayna , 35 NY2d 245, 251 [1974]). 2017In other words, where, as here, a proposed amended complaint contains an untimely claim against a defendant who is already a party to the litigation, the relevant considerations are simply (1) whether the original complaint gave the defendant notice of the transactions or occurrences at issue and (2) whether there would be undue prejudice to the defendant if the amendment and relation back are permitted (see CPLR 203 [f]; 3025 [b]; see Buran, 87 NY2d at 178 ; Caffaro v Trayna, 35 NY2d 245, 251 [1974]). | 1 | 1 |
Southern Wine & Spirits of America, Inc. v. Impact Environmental Engineering, PLLCgreen1 sentence2016Eng’g, PLLC, 80 AD3d 505, 505-506 [1st Dept 2011]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Salnavegreen1 sentence2015The defendant’s contention that he was deprived of a fair trial due to comments the prosecutor made on summation is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]), because the defense either failed to object to the challenged comments, made only general objections, or failed to request additional relief when the Supreme Court sustained an objection, and the untimely defense motion for a mistrial failed to preserve the contention for appellate review (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 911, 912 [2006]; People v Salnave, 41 AD3d 872, 874 [2007]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Romerogreen1 sentence2015The defendant’s contention that he was deprived of a fair trial due to comments the prosecutor made on summation is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]), because the defense either failed to object to the challenged comments, made only general objections, or failed to request additional relief when the Supreme Court sustained an objection, and the untimely defense motion for a mistrial failed to preserve the contention for appellate review (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 911, 912 [2006]; People v Salnave, 41 AD3d 872, 874 [2007]). | 1 | 1 |
B.B.C.F.D., S.A. v. Bank Julius Baer & Co.green1 sentence2010However, the relation back doctrine does not preserve an untimely claim for affirmative relief in an amended pleading where “the original pleading does not give notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, to be proved pursuant to the amended pleading” (CPLR 203 [f]; see B.B.C.F.D., S.A. v Bank Julius Baer & Co., Ltd., 62 AD3d 425, 426 [2009], lv dismissed 13 NY3d 933 [2010]; United States Fid. & Guar. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Shofkomgreen1 sentence2010However, the relation back doctrine does not preserve an untimely claim for affirmative relief in an amended pleading where “the original pleading does not give notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, to be proved pursuant to the amended pleading” (CPLR 203 [f]; see B.B.C.F.D., S.A. v Bank Julius Baer & Co., Ltd., 62 AD3d 425, 426 [2009], lv dismissed 13 NY3d 933 [2010]; United States Fid. & Guar. | 1 | 1 |
Clark v. Clarkgreen1 sentence2009Inasmuch as the father did not pursue an appeal from that order, he is precluded from arguing that no agreement to pay for college expenses exists (see Family Ct Act § 1113; Matter of Clark v Clark, 61 AD3d 1274, 1275 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 702 [2009]; Matter of Regan v Zalucky, 56 AD3d 825 , 826-827 [2008]; Matter of Groesbeck v Groesbeck, 52 AD3d 903 [2008]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Atkinsgreen1 sentence2009An untimely test does not become more reliable, however, just because the driver voluntarily consented.” {People v Atkins, 85 NY2d 1007, 1009 [1995, Simons, J., dissenting].) . | 1 | 1 |
People v. McGrathgreen1 sentence2009Concerning court-ordered testing, see People v McGrath ( 135 AD2d 60, 62 [2d Dept 1988], affd 73 NY2d 826 [1988]), in which the Court reviewed the language of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194-a, which formerly governed court-ordered chemical tests, and found that “[n]othing in the unambiguous language of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194-a indicates that the Legislature intended to impose a specific time limitation on the performance of court-ordered chemical tests.” The court reasoned that “omission of such a restriction reflects a rational legislative determination that it was unnecessary. | 1 | 1 |
Martin v. Coughlingreen1 sentence2005Therefore, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that claimant failed to establish good cause for filing an untimely claim (see Matter of Lang [Commissioner of Labor], supra at 649; Matter of Chen [Commissioner of Labor], 307 AD2d 580, 581 [2003]; Matter of Maier [Hudacs], 207 AD2d 932, 932-933 [1994]). | 1 | 1 |
In re the Claim of Chengreen1 sentence2005Therefore, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that claimant failed to establish good cause for filing an untimely claim (see Matter of Lang [Commissioner of Labor], supra at 649; Matter of Chen [Commissioner of Labor], 307 AD2d 580, 581 [2003]; Matter of Maier [Hudacs], 207 AD2d 932, 932-933 [1994]). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Negron v. State
green
2 sentences2024As discussed above, to commence an action in the Court of Claims, both service and filing must be accomplished ( Dreger v NewYork State Thruway Auth ., 81 NY2d721, 724 [1992]; Negron v State of New York , 257 AD2d 652 [2d Dept 1999]). 2024As discussed above, to commence an action in the Court of Claims, both service and filing must be accomplished ( Dreger v NewYork State Thruway Auth ., 81 NY2d721, 724 [1992]; Negron v State of New York , 257 AD2d 652 [2d Dept 1999]). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Goldberg v. Camp Mikan-Recro
green
1 sentence2016Thus, the untimely claim brought by plaintiff on November 30, 2012 could not relate back to the defective summons, because no valid action was commenced by the filing of that summons (see Goldberg v Camp Mikan-Recro, 42 NY2d 1029 [1977]; Southern Wine & Spirits of Am., Inc. v Impact Envtl. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. McGrath
neutral
1 sentence2009Concerning court-ordered testing, see People v McGrath ( 135 AD2d 60, 62 [2d Dept 1988], affd 73 NY2d 826 [1988]), in which the Court reviewed the language of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194-a, which formerly governed court-ordered chemical tests, and found that “[n]othing in the unambiguous language of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194-a indicates that the Legislature intended to impose a specific time limitation on the performance of court-ordered chemical tests.” The court reasoned that “omission of such a restriction reflects a rational legislative determination that it was unnecessary. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Groesbeck v. Groesbeck
green
1 sentence2009Inasmuch as the father did not pursue an appeal from that order, he is precluded from arguing that no agreement to pay for college expenses exists (see Family Ct Act § 1113; Matter of Clark v Clark, 61 AD3d 1274, 1275 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 702 [2009]; Matter of Regan v Zalucky, 56 AD3d 825 , 826-827 [2008]; Matter of Groesbeck v Groesbeck, 52 AD3d 903 [2008]). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Matter of Matthews Trust No. 1
green
1 sentence2009Inasmuch as the father did not pursue an appeal from that order, he is precluded from arguing that no agreement to pay for college expenses exists (see Family Ct Act § 1113; Matter of Clark v Clark, 61 AD3d 1274, 1275 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 702 [2009]; Matter of Regan v Zalucky, 56 AD3d 825 , 826-827 [2008]; Matter of Groesbeck v Groesbeck, 52 AD3d 903 [2008]). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
People v. Love
green
1 sentence2009Initially, we conclude that this ineffective assistance claim is unreviewable on direct appeal because the record does not explain counsel’s reasons for declining to challenge the predicate conviction (see People v Love, 57 NY2d 998 [1982]). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Claim of Esperson v. Gowanda State Homeopathic Hospital
neutral
1 sentence2000Where, as here, the employer was aware of claimant’s injury and its actions, upon which claimant justifiably relied, effectively inhibited the timely filing of a claim, the Board is not required to deny an untimely claim pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 28 (see, Matter of Esperson v Gowanda State Homeopathic Hosp., 20 AD2d 828 , lv denied 14 NY2d 485 ). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Block v. New York State Thruway Authority
green
1 sentence1983We note that granting a motion for leave to file an untimely claim (Court of Claims Act, § 10, subd 6) rests within the broad discretion of the Court of Claims (Block v New York State Thruway Auth., 69 AD2d 930, 931 ). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Donovan v. New York State Teachers' Retirement System
neutral
1 sentence1983This court has recently held that the six absolute and specific requirements delineated in the statute are to be considered among other factors, and we may reverse decisions only when the “court’s discretionary power has been clearly abused” (Donovan v New York State Teachers’ Retirement System, 87 AD2d 664, 665 ). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Shotwell Manufacturing Co. v. United States
green
1 sentence1974Co. v. United States, 371 U. S. 341 .) The record clearly supports a finding that .the composition of the Grand Jury resulted in no prejudice to the petitioner and no cause is shown that the interest of justice warrants an extension of petitioner’s time to challenge the composition of the Grand Jury. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.