severity violation (New York) · Go Syfert
← New York issues

severity violation in New York

13 New York opinions name it 6 courts 1888–2007 0 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Goldner v. Doknovitchgreen
nyappterm · 1976 · cited in 3 New York opinions naming this issue, 1982–1983
2 sentences

1982(Goldner v Doknovitch, 88 Misc 2d 88 .) In Park West the court stated (supra, p 329): “In ascertaining damages, the finder of fact must weigh the severity of the violation and duration of the conditions giving rise to the breach as well as the effectiveness of steps taken by the landlord to abate these conditions.” The defects in the evidence presented by the tenants number more than one.

1982“It is the obligation of the trial court to determine the value of the services of which the tenants are deprived, the severity of the violation at issue, the extent and duration of any deprivation, and the responsiveness of the landlord in dealing with the problem” (N Town Roosevelt Assoc. v Muller, NYLJ, Oct. 27, 1980, p 6, col 4), and “Tenants are not required to pay for services they did not receive” (Goldner v Doknovitch, 88 Misc 2d 88, 91 ).

13
People v. Thomasgreen
ny · 1978 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
1 sentence

2006While refusal to take a chemical test is admissible at trial against a defendant as evidence of his consciousness of guilt (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 [2] [f]; People v Thomas, 46 NY2d 100, 108 [1978]), the prosecution sought to use defendant’s refusal for purposes beyond that allowed by the law.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (10)

CaseCitedYears
People Ex Rel. Siegal v. Dros neutral
ny · 1962
2 sentences

1990Siegal v Dros, 14 A.D.2d 66 , 70 [1st Dept, 1961], revd on other grnds 11 N.Y.2d 167 [1962]; 1984 Op Atty Gen [Inf] 118; 1988 Op Atty Gen [Inf] 74).

1988Siegal v Dros, 14 A.D.2d 66 , 70 [1st Dept, 1961] rev on other grounds 11 N.Y.2d 167 [1962]).

41984–1990
People ex rel. Siegal v. Dros neutral
nyappdiv · 1961
2 sentences

1990Siegal v Dros, 14 A.D.2d 66 , 70 [1st Dept, 1961], revd on other grnds 11 N.Y.2d 167 [1962]; 1984 Op Atty Gen [Inf] 118; 1988 Op Atty Gen [Inf] 74).

1988Siegal v Dros, 14 A.D.2d 66 , 70 [1st Dept, 1961] rev on other grounds 11 N.Y.2d 167 [1962]).

41984–1990
Brill v. City of New York green
ny · 2004
1 sentence

2007Still, we see no way to harmonize the dissent’s approach with the current state of the law, given the language of 22 NYCRR 202.48, the Court of Appeals’ construction of the term “good cause” in Brill , and the emphasis the Court of Appeals has placed in recent years on the importance of enforcing codified and court ordered litigation deadlines in order to protect “the integrity of our judicial system” (Brill, 2 NY3d at 653 ).

12007–2007
Fraley Realty Corp. v. Stocker green
nyappterm · 1982
1 sentence

1983DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF THE WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY AND RENT OVERCHARGES In a breach of warranty counterclaim “ ‘[i]t is the obligation of the trial court to determine the value of the services of which the tenants are deprived, the severity of the violation at issue, the extent and duration of any deprivation, and the responsiveness of the landlord in dealing with the problem’ ” (Fraley Realty Corp. v Stocker, 115 Misc 2d 52 [App Term, 1st Dept]).

11983–1983
Park West Management Corp. v. Mitchell green
ny · 1979
1 sentence

1980Corp. v Mitchell ( 47 NY2d 316, 329 ): “In ascertaining damages, the finder of fact must weigh the severity of the violation and duration of the conditions giving rise to the breach as well as the effectiveness of steps taken by the landlord”.

11980–1980
Graves v. . Berdan green
ny · 1863
1 sentence

1979The harshness of the common-law rule was mitigated to a degree by decisions holding that performance of a tenant’s covenant to pay rent was excused when the premises were destroyed through no fault of his own (e.g., Graves v Berdan, 26 NY 498, 501 ).

11979–1979
Rosenwasser v. Blyn Shoes, Inc. green
ny · 1927
1 sentence

1932As was said in the case of Rosenwasser v. Blyn Shoes, Inc. ( 246 N. Y. 340, 346 ), involving a sale of Stocks, “ the default must be such that it destroys the essential objects of the contract.” The severity of this rule is somewhat relaxed where the default is deliberate.

11932–1932
Ass'n for the Benefit of Colored Orphans v. Mayor of New York green
ny · 1887
1 sentence

1888The severity with which the rule of strict construction has been applied is illustrated by the following cases: Chegaray v. Mayor, etc., 13 N. Y. 220 ; Association v. Mayor, etc., 104 N. Y. 581 , 12 N. E.

11888–1888
Buffalo City Cemetery v. . City of Buffalo neutral
ny · 1871
1 sentence

1888Rep. 279; Cemetery v. City of Buffalo, 46 N. Y. 506 .

11888–1888
Chegaray v. . the Mayor, C., of New-York green
· 1855
1 sentence

1888The severity with which the rule of strict construction has been applied is illustrated by the following cases: Chegaray v. Mayor, etc., 13 N. Y. 220 ; Association v. Mayor, etc., 104 N. Y. 581 , 12 N. E.

11888–1888

Where else courts name it

KY 31 (1979–2026) OH 27 (1905–2026) NC 19 (1975–2021) IL 19 (1883–2024) NY 13 (1888–2007) DC 13 (1987–2023) CA 10 (2013–2025) PA 8 (1915–2024) TX 7 (1993–2018) FL 6 (1990–2018) IA 6 (1970–2026) MO 5 (1987–2018) MA 5 (1902–2023) IN 4 (1937–2026) CO 4 (1941–2015) NM 4 (1994–2017) MD 4 (1961–2017) UT 4 (2000–2018) RI 3 (1996–2004) MT 3 (2010–2010) GA 3 (1989–1995) TN 3 (2009–2012) OK 3 (1998–2015) OR 3 (1982–2022) WA 2 (2006–2006) ID 2 (1905–2005) LA 2 (1976–1993) MI 2 (1853–2022) CT 2 (1992–1995) WI 2 (2002–2004) MN 2 (1890–2017)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check