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.
112 New York opinions name it 15 courts 1877–2026 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hospital v. TRAVELERS PROP. CASUALTY INS.green2 sentences2015Co., 9 NY3d 312, 317 [2007]; see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]). 6 Where an insurer fails to pay or deny a claim within the requisite 30 days under the statute and regulations following its receipt of the proof of claim, the insurer is subject to “substantial consequences,” namely, preclusion “from asserting a defense against payment of the claim” (Fair Price, 10 NY3d at 563 [internal quotation marks omitted]). 2008If an insurer seeks additional verification, however, the 30-day window is tolled until it receives the relevant information requested ( see 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [a] [1])" ( Hospital for Joint Diseases, 9 NY3d at 317 [footnotes omitted]). | 2 | 2 |
Torres v. Fischergreen2 sentences2013As in Rosa, there was no direct proof in the record of threats by petitioner and the hearsay evidence in the confidential record was not “sufficiently detailed to allow the Hearing Officer to make an independent assessment to determine its reliability and credibility” (Matter of Torres v Fischer, 101 AD3d 1281, 1282 [2012]; see Matter of Carrasquillo v Rabsatt, 109 AD3d 1036, 1037 [2013]). 2013As in Rosa, there was no direct proof in the record of threats by petitioner and the hearsay evidence in the confidential record was not “sufficiently detailed to allow the Hearing Officer to make an independent assessment to determine its reliability and credibility” (Matter of Torres v Fischer, 101 AD3d 1281, 1282 [2012]; see Matter of Carrasquillo v Rabsatt, 109 AD3d 1036, 1037 [2013]). | 2 | 2 |
Hyzer v. Fischergreen2 sentences2013As in Rosa, there was no direct proof in the record of threats by petitioner and the hearsay evidence in the confidential record was not “sufficiently detailed to allow the Hearing Officer to make an independent assessment to determine its reliability and credibility” (Matter of Torres v Fischer, 101 AD3d 1281, 1282 [2012]; see Matter of Carrasquillo v Rabsatt, 109 AD3d 1036, 1037 [2013]). 2013As in Rosa, there was no direct proof in the record of threats by petitioner and the hearsay evidence in the confidential record was not “sufficiently detailed to allow the Hearing Officer to make an independent assessment to determine its reliability and credibility” (Matter of Torres v Fischer, 101 AD3d 1281, 1282 [2012]; see Matter of Carrasquillo v Rabsatt, 109 AD3d 1036, 1037 [2013]). | 2 | 2 |
MTB Banking Corp. v. Consolidated Edison Co.green2 sentences2013Since a plaintiff may demonstrate that it is entitled to the remedy of preclusion merely by showing that the insurer had notice of its submitted proof of claim, the proof of claim forms submitted for this purpose need not be admissible for the truth of the matter asserted therein (see Splawn v Lextaj Corp., 197 AD2d at 480; compare Westchester Med. 2013Since a plaintiff may demonstrate that it is entitled to the remedy of preclusion merely by showing that the insurer had notice of its submitted proof of claim, the proof of claim forms submitted for this purpose need not be admissible for the truth of the matter asserted therein (see Splawn v Lextaj Corp., 197 AD2d at 480; compare Westchester Med. | 2 | 2 |
Presbyterian Hospital v. Maryland Casualty Co.green2 sentences2009Co., 90 NY2d 274, 278 [1997].) However, an insurer may toll the 30-day period by properly requesting verification within 15 days from the receipt of the proof of claim form or bill (Psych. & Massage Therapy Assoc., PLLC v Progressive Cas. 2007Co., 90 NY2d 274, 278 [1997]). | 2 | 2 |
Woodson v. Mendon Leasing Corp.green1 sentence2025The proof of a claim is satisfied when the plaintiff submits sufficient evidence for the court to determine that a viable cause of action exists (Woodson v Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 NY2d 62, 70 [2003]; Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance, Inc. v Ammon, 179 AD 3d 1138 , 1141 [2d Dept 2020]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Dumaygreen1 sentence2022Since defendant expressly waived prosecution by information, the accusatory instrument's legal sufficiency must be{**78 Misc 3d at 4} evaluated under the standards which govern that of a misdemeanor complaint ( see People v Dumay , 23 NY3d 518, 524 [2014]), which is sufficient on its face when it alleges facts of an evidentiary character supporting or tending to support the charge ( see CPL 100.15 [3]) and provides reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the crime charged ( see CPL 100.40 [4] [b]; People v Dumas , 68 NY2d 729, 731 [1986]). | 1 | 1 |
Reich v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co.green1 sentence2022Since defendant expressly waived prosecution by information, the accusatory instrument's legal sufficiency must be{**78 Misc 3d at 4} evaluated under the standards which govern that of a misdemeanor complaint ( see People v Dumay , 23 NY3d 518, 524 [2014]), which is sufficient on its face when it alleges facts of an evidentiary character supporting or tending to support the charge ( see CPL 100.15 [3]) and provides reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the crime charged ( see CPL 100.40 [4] [b]; People v Dumas , 68 NY2d 729, 731 [1986]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Russogreen1 sentence2021Moreover, "the record of the reconstruction hearing supports the court's determination" ( People v Russo , 4 AD3d 777, 778 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 806 [2004]; see People v Pinkney , 300 AD2d 79 , 79 [2002], lv denied 99 NY3d 631 [2003]; see also People v Knight , 280 AD2d 937, 940 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 864 [2001]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Alomargreen1 sentence2021The reconstruction hearing has since been completed, and County Court determined that the proof at the hearing demonstrated that "the copy of the verdict sheet was provided to counsel for the express purpose of insuring that counsel had no objections to the verdict sheet being given to the jury." Contrary to defendant's assertion, we discern no error with the manner in which County Court conducted the reconstruction hearing as it was not a hearing to determine defendant's guilt, but rather one to "reconstruct and settle the record" ( People v Alomar , 93 NY2d 239, 247 [1999]; see generally Peo | 1 | 1 |
Proctor v. Stategreen1 sentence2021Moreover, "the record of the reconstruction hearing supports the court's determination" ( People v Russo , 4 AD3d 777, 778 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 806 [2004]; see People v Pinkney , 300 AD2d 79 , 79 [2002], lv denied 99 NY3d 631 [2003]; see also People v Knight , 280 AD2d 937, 940 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 864 [2001]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Pinkneygreen1 sentence2021Moreover, "the record of the reconstruction hearing supports the court's determination" ( People v Russo , 4 AD3d 777, 778 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 806 [2004]; see People v Pinkney , 300 AD2d 79 , 79 [2002], lv denied 99 NY3d 631 [2003]; see also People v Knight , 280 AD2d 937, 940 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 864 [2001]). | 1 | 1 |
The People v. Jamar Bethunegreen1 sentence2021The reconstruction hearing has since been completed, and County Court determined that the proof at the hearing demonstrated that "the copy of the verdict sheet was provided to counsel for the express purpose of insuring that counsel had no objections to the verdict sheet being given to the jury." Contrary to defendant's assertion, we discern no error with the manner in which County Court conducted the reconstruction hearing as it was not a hearing to determine defendant's guilt, but rather one to "reconstruct and settle the record" ( People v Alomar , 93 NY2d 239, 247 [1999]; see generally Peo | 1 | 1 |
In Re Garnettgreen1 sentence2019The Bankruptcy Court dismissed plaintiff's case in May 2013, and therefore was divested of exclusive jurisdiction over plaintiff's property ( In re Garnett , 303 BR 274, 278 [ED NY 2003]). | 1 | 1 |
Lago v. Adriongreen1 sentence2018Further, if the proof at the hearing establishes that the wife voluntarily filed the joint tax return, an assessment will need to be made as to each parties' equitable share of the tax liability ( see generally Lago v Adrion , 93 AD3d 697, 700 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 812 [2012]). | 1 | 1 |
Viviane Etienne Medical Care v. Country-Wide Ins.green1 sentence2018As relevant here, "[w]here an insurer fails to pay or deny a [no-fault] claim within the requisite 30 days under the statute and regulations following its receipt of the proof of claim, the insurer is subject to substantial consequences, namely, preclusion from asserting a defense against payment of the claim" ( id. at 506 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Fair Price Med. | 1 | 1 |
In re the Estate of Feinberggreen1 sentence2016In opposition, however, the defendant raised a triable issue of fact as to whether it properly delivered a proof of claim as to the 1991 assessment to the executor of Talbot’s estate (see SCPA 1803 [2]), which tolled the limitations period (see Matter of Feinberg, 18 NY2d 499, 507-508 [1966]). | 1 | 1 |
Carothers v. GEICO Indemnity Co.green1 sentence2015The court determined that defendant in opposition failed to raise a triable issue of fact because it was precluded from raising the defense that the proof of claim forms were inadmissible under the business records exception to hearsay as it did not deny the claim within the statutory time frame (id. at 47).5 The Appellate Division remitted the case to Civil Court 4 The court noted that it had relied upon Art of Healing in the context of no-fault insurance in only one case, Matter of Carothers ( 79 AD3d 864, 864-865 [2d Dept 2010]). 5 The dissenting justices concurred in part and dissented in | 1 | 1 |
| FAIR PRICE MED. v. Travelersgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Zuckerman v. City of New Yorkgreen | 1 | 1 |
GTF Marketing, Inc. v. Colonial Aluminum Sales, Inc.green2 sentences2015Admissible evidence may include "affidavits by persons having knowledge of the facts [and] reciting the material facts" (GTF Marketing v Colonial Aluminum Sales, 66 NY2d 965, 967 [1985]; CPLR 3212 [b]; see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 ). 2015Admissible evidence may include “affidavits by persons having knowledge of the facts [and] reciting the material facts” (GTF Mktg. v Colonial Aluminum Sales, 66 NY2d 965, 967 [1985]; CPLR 3212 [b]; see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). | 1 | 1 |
| New York & Presbyterian Hospital v. Country-Wide Insurancegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Medical Select, P.C. v. Allstate Insurancegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Miller v. New York State Department of Corrections & Community Supervisiongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Peck v. Peckgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Morrissey v. Brewergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Block v. Ambachgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mangini v. Christophergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Romano v. Stanleygreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Saint Vincents Catholic Medical Centers of New Yorkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Passero v. Giordanogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Van Hoesen v. Van Hoesengreen | 1 | 1 |
| Goldsmith v. Goldsmithgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Tejadagreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Maninigreen | 1 | 1 |
| Friar v. Vanguard Holding Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Deutsch-Sokol v. Northside Savings Bank (In Re Deutsch-Sokol)green | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Moyettegreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Ayersgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Edmondsgreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rosa v. Fischer
green
2 sentences2013These charges arose out of the same conduct and involved essentially the same proof at the hearing as we found insufficient in Matter of Rosa v Fischer ( 112 AD3d 1009 [2013] [decided herewith]). 2013These charges arose out of the same conduct and involved essentially the same proof at the hearing as we found insufficient in Matter of Rosa v Fischer ( 112 AD3d 1009 [2013] [decided herewith]). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Crimmins
green
2 sentences2005Quite clearly, the quantum and nature of the proof at bar does not overwhelmingly evince defendant’s guilt, and we simply cannot say that there is no reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to defendant’s conviction (see id. at 237 ). 1993Since the complainant’s testimony that defendant robbed her satisfied the additional proof requirement of CPL 60.50, the trial court’s supplemental instructions that defendant could be convicted solely upon her admission of guilt at trial was not reversible error (People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 ), assuming, without deciding, that such requirement of additional proof should have been charged. | 2 | 1993–2005 |
In Re the Accounting of Schorer
green
2 sentences1960(Matter of Whitcher, 230 App. Div. 239 ; Matter of Schorer, 272 N. Y. 247 .) It is clear that the section applies to a nonresident who in the first instance is asserting a claim and not to the nonresident against whom a claim is made. 1940The rule in Matter of Schorer (supra) protects a creditor who actually served a proof of claim, either pursuant to an advertisement of notice of presentation of claims, or under the alternative form of filing of such proof of claim in the absence of the advertisement, since under the decision of the Court of Appeals the service or filing of the proof is the equivalent of the commencement of an action, with the opportunity of having the claim tried and determined in the accounting proceeding. | 2 | 1940–1960 |
In re the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Whitcher
green
2 sentences1960(Matter of Whitcher, 230 App. Div. 239 ; Matter of Schorer, 272 N. Y. 247 .) It is clear that the section applies to a nonresident who in the first instance is asserting a claim and not to the nonresident against whom a claim is made. 1944The petitioner bases his argument upon the authority of Matter of Whitcher ( 230 App. Div. 239 ) and Matter of Schorer ( 154 Misc. 198 ). | 2 | 1944–1960 |
Mills v. . Parkhurst
green
2 sentences1959(Mills v. Parkhurst, 126 N. Y. 89, 93 .) Its petition of December 30 may not have been intended as a proof of claim, but it was clear therefrom that it was a creditor with a claim against the assignor. 1900(Mills v. Parkhurst, 126 N. Y. 89 ; Terry v. Munger, 121 ib. 161; Conrow v. Little, 115 ib. 387; Fowler v. Bowery Savings Bank, 113 ib. 450; Seavey v. Potter, 121 Mass. 297 ; Ormsby v. Dearborn, 116 ib. 386.) In the Massachusetts cases cited, it was held that the claim to rescind the sale was inconsistent with a proof of claim in bankruptcy for the price of the goods. | 2 | 1900–1959 |
Besen v. Farhadian
green
1 sentence2026Accordingly, the branch of the Plaintiff’s motion seeking to conform the pleadings to the proof as to this claim against Korbelin is granted (see id.; Besen, 195 AD3d at 549 ; CPLR § 3025[c]). 9 Inasmuch as the Appellate Division Decision already acknowledged that Korbelin was a fiduciary who owed fiduciary duties to Curious’ shareholders (Paley, 233 AD3d at 591), permitting this cause of action as against Korbelin to be considered by the fact finder is consistent with the Appellate Division’s decision and remand (see e.g., Maracina, 152 AD2d; Matter of Sipal Realty Corp., 15 AD2d; Wiener, 10 | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Nektalov (Samual)
yellow
1 sentence2022Since defendant expressly waived prosecution by information, the accusatory instrument's legal sufficiency must be{**78 Misc 3d at 4} evaluated under the standards which govern that of a misdemeanor complaint ( see People v Dumay , 23 NY3d 518, 524 [2014]), which is sufficient on its face when it alleges facts of an evidentiary character supporting or tending to support the charge ( see CPL 100.15 [3]) and provides reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the crime charged ( see CPL 100.40 [4] [b]; People v Dumas , 68 NY2d 729, 731 [1986]). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Russo
green
1 sentence2021Moreover, "the record of the reconstruction hearing supports the court's determination" ( People v Russo , 4 AD3d 777, 778 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 806 [2004]; see People v Pinkney , 300 AD2d 79 , 79 [2002], lv denied 99 NY3d 631 [2003]; see also People v Knight , 280 AD2d 937, 940 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 864 [2001]). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
William Gardam & Son v. Batterson
green
1 sentence2021In Gardam & Son, for example, this Court held that the proof of a standard office mailing procedure was deficient because, although the defendant testified that he always placed outgoing letters in a tray on his desk to be mailed, there was “no sufficient proof of a course of office practice, or of business, from which a presumption might be legally indulged, that the letters had been carried to the post office and that they, therefore, had been received in due course of the mails” ( 198 NY at 178 ). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Voluto Ventures, LLC v. Jenkens & Gilchrist Parker Chapin LLP
green
1 sentence2017They failed to show that the proof they claim they need is within the exclusive knowledge or control of Tri-State and that their opposition to Tri-State’s motion is supported by something other than mere hope or conjecture (see Voluto Ventures, LLC v Jenkens & Gilchrist Parker Chapin LLP, 44 AD3d 557 [1st Dept 2007]). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
A.M. Medical Services, P.C. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance
neutral
1 sentence2016Co., 101 AD3d 53 [2d Dept 2012]; Prestige at 286.) By properly requesting additional verification within 15 days from the receipt of the proof of claim form, an insurer may toll the 30-day period in which it must deny the claim. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v. Walsh green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| People ex rel. Menechino v. Warden green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| People v. Karpeles green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| People v. Worley green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| People v. Herron green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| People v. Oates green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| In Re Woods green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| In Re Mendiola green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| People v. Madrid green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Parker v. Rich neutral | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Mary Immaculate Hospital v. Allstate Insurance green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Damadian MRI in Canarsie, P.C. v. Countrywide Insurance neutral | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Konski Engineers v. Commissioner green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Mount Sinai Hospital v. Triboro Coach, Inc. green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| In re Aishia O. green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.