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.
12 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1901–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dugan v. Olsongreen2 sentences2015Moreover, where a plaintiff alleges that he or she was assaulted by an intoxicated individual, to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing a complaint alleging a violation of the Dram Shop Act, a defendant is “required to establish either that it did not serve alcohol to [the plaintiff’s assailant] while he [or she] was visibly intoxicated or that its sale of alcohol to him [or her] had no reasonable or practical connection to the assault” (Dugan v Olson, 74 AD3d 1131, 1133 [2010]). 2015Moreover, where a plaintiff alleges that he or she was assaulted by an intoxicated individual, to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing a complaint alleging a violation of the Dram Shop Act, a defendant is “required to establish either that it did not serve alcohol to [the plaintiff’s assailant] while he [or she] was visibly intoxicated or that its sale of alcohol to him [or her] had no reasonable or practical connection to the assault” (Dugan v Olson, 74 AD3d 1131, 1133 [2010]). | 2 | 2 |
Homan v. Herziggreen2 sentences2011Plaintiff failed to preserve for our review his contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence inasmuch as he failed to make a timely motion to set aside the verdict on that ground (see Homan v Herzig [appeal No. 2], 55 AD3d 1413, 1413-1414 ; Givens v Rochester City School Dist., 294 AD2d 898, 899 ) and, in any event, that contention lacks merit (see generally Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744, 746 ; Ruddock v Happell, 307 AD2d 719, 720 ; Jaquay v Avery, 244 AD2d 730, 730-731 ). 2011Plaintiff failed to preserve for our review his contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence inasmuch as he failed to make a timely motion to set aside the verdict on that ground (see Homan v Herzig [appeal No. 2], 55 AD3d 1413, 1413-1414 [2008]; Givens v Rochester City School Dist., 294 AD2d 898, 899 [2002]) and, in any event, that contention lacks merit (see generally Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744, 746 [1995]; Ruddock v Happell, 307 AD2d 719, 720 [2003]; Jaquay v Avery, 244 AD2d 730, 730-731 [1997]). | 1 | 2 |
Lolik v. Big v. Supermarkets, Inc.green2 sentences2011Plaintiff failed to preserve for our review his contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence inasmuch as he failed to make a timely motion to set aside the verdict on that ground (see Homan v Herzig [appeal No. 2], 55 AD3d 1413, 1413-1414 ; Givens v Rochester City School Dist., 294 AD2d 898, 899 ) and, in any event, that contention lacks merit (see generally Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744, 746 ; Ruddock v Happell, 307 AD2d 719, 720 ; Jaquay v Avery, 244 AD2d 730, 730-731 ). 2011Plaintiff failed to preserve for our review his contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence inasmuch as he failed to make a timely motion to set aside the verdict on that ground (see Homan v Herzig [appeal No. 2], 55 AD3d 1413, 1413-1414 [2008]; Givens v Rochester City School Dist., 294 AD2d 898, 899 [2002]) and, in any event, that contention lacks merit (see generally Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744, 746 [1995]; Ruddock v Happell, 307 AD2d 719, 720 [2003]; Jaquay v Avery, 244 AD2d 730, 730-731 [1997]). | 1 | 2 |
Jaquay v. Averygreen2 sentences2011Plaintiff failed to preserve for our review his contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence inasmuch as he failed to make a timely motion to set aside the verdict on that ground (see Homan v Herzig [appeal No. 2], 55 AD3d 1413, 1413-1414 ; Givens v Rochester City School Dist., 294 AD2d 898, 899 ) and, in any event, that contention lacks merit (see generally Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744, 746 ; Ruddock v Happell, 307 AD2d 719, 720 ; Jaquay v Avery, 244 AD2d 730, 730-731 ). 2011Plaintiff failed to preserve for our review his contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence inasmuch as he failed to make a timely motion to set aside the verdict on that ground (see Homan v Herzig [appeal No. 2], 55 AD3d 1413, 1413-1414 [2008]; Givens v Rochester City School Dist., 294 AD2d 898, 899 [2002]) and, in any event, that contention lacks merit (see generally Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744, 746 [1995]; Ruddock v Happell, 307 AD2d 719, 720 [2003]; Jaquay v Avery, 244 AD2d 730, 730-731 [1997]). | 1 | 2 |
Givens v. Rochester City School Districtgreen2 sentences2011Plaintiff failed to preserve for our review his contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence inasmuch as he failed to make a timely motion to set aside the verdict on that ground (see Homan v Herzig [appeal No. 2], 55 AD3d 1413, 1413-1414 ; Givens v Rochester City School Dist., 294 AD2d 898, 899 ) and, in any event, that contention lacks merit (see generally Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744, 746 ; Ruddock v Happell, 307 AD2d 719, 720 ; Jaquay v Avery, 244 AD2d 730, 730-731 ). 2011Plaintiff failed to preserve for our review his contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence inasmuch as he failed to make a timely motion to set aside the verdict on that ground (see Homan v Herzig [appeal No. 2], 55 AD3d 1413, 1413-1414 [2008]; Givens v Rochester City School Dist., 294 AD2d 898, 899 [2002]) and, in any event, that contention lacks merit (see generally Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744, 746 [1995]; Ruddock v Happell, 307 AD2d 719, 720 [2003]; Jaquay v Avery, 244 AD2d 730, 730-731 [1997]). | 1 | 2 |
Ruddock v. Happellgreen2 sentences2011Plaintiff failed to preserve for our review his contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence inasmuch as he failed to make a timely motion to set aside the verdict on that ground (see Homan v Herzig [appeal No. 2], 55 AD3d 1413, 1413-1414 ; Givens v Rochester City School Dist., 294 AD2d 898, 899 ) and, in any event, that contention lacks merit (see generally Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744, 746 ; Ruddock v Happell, 307 AD2d 719, 720 ; Jaquay v Avery, 244 AD2d 730, 730-731 ). 2011Plaintiff failed to preserve for our review his contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence inasmuch as he failed to make a timely motion to set aside the verdict on that ground (see Homan v Herzig [appeal No. 2], 55 AD3d 1413, 1413-1414 [2008]; Givens v Rochester City School Dist., 294 AD2d 898, 899 [2002]) and, in any event, that contention lacks merit (see generally Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744, 746 [1995]; Ruddock v Happell, 307 AD2d 719, 720 [2003]; Jaquay v Avery, 244 AD2d 730, 730-731 [1997]). | 1 | 2 |
Vig v. New York Hairspray Co.green1 sentence2025As such, a complaint alleging a claim under the City HRL "need only give 'fair notice' of the nature of the claim and its grounds" (Vig v New York Hairspray Co., L.P., 67 AD3d 140, 145 [1st Dept 2009]; see also Kirbyv Carlo's Bakery42nd & 8th LLC, 212 AD3d441, 442 [1st Dept2023] ["[a]lthough plaintiffs first cause of action is labeled as one for 'hostile workplace,' Supreme Court was not bound by that designation and plaintiff has sufficiently stated a cause of action for employment 161370/2019 YULIANO, MARIE vs. | 1 | 1 |
Boose v. City of Rochestergreen1 sentence2009A cause of action for malicious prosecution accrues when the criminal proceeding terminates favorably to the plaintiff (Boose v City of Rochester, 71 AD2d 59, 65 [1979]). | 1 | 1 |
Murrin v. Ford Motor Co.green1 sentence2007The cause of action for breach of express warranty was properly dismissed for failure to set forth the terms of the alleged warranty with sufficient particularity to give fair notice thereof (CPLR 3013; see Murrin v Ford Motor Co., 303 AD2d 475, 477 [2003]). | 1 | 1 |
O'Donoghue v. New York City School Construction Authoritygreen1 sentence2004Auth., supra at 335-336). | 1 | 1 |
Zuckerman v. City of New Yorkgreen1 sentence2004By contrast, Mass Mutual and Bovis on their cross motion established their prima facie entitlement to dismissal of so much of the complaint alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) insofar as asserted against them, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; Monsegur v Modern Comfort Tech., 289 AD2d 307 [2001]). | 1 | 1 |
City of Syracuse v. . Hogangreen1 sentence1962Schirmer, Inc., 284 App. Div. 639, 642-644 , revd. on other grounds 308 N. Y. 366 ; see, also, City of Syracuse v. Hogan, 234 N. Y. 457 ). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bin Gu v. Palm Beach Tan, Inc.
green
1 sentence2011The Supreme Court correctly denied that branch of the motion of the second third-party defendant/fourth third-party defendant, Smart Choice of New York, Inc., which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action in the amended complaint alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1), because triable issues of fact exist as to whether the plaintiff’s alleged conduct was the sole proximate cause of the subject accident, for the reasons stated in Bin Gu v Palm Beach Tan, Inc. ( 81 AD3d 867 [2011] [decided herewith]). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Monsegur v. Modern Comfort Technology
green
1 sentence2004By contrast, Mass Mutual and Bovis on their cross motion established their prima facie entitlement to dismissal of so much of the complaint alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) insofar as asserted against them, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; Monsegur v Modern Comfort Tech., 289 AD2d 307 [2001]). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Koeppel v. Wachtler
green
1 sentence1992By order dated June 13, 1988, this court modified that order by reinstating the third cause of action of the complaint alleging a violation of Executive Law § 296 (1) (a) by the New York State Board of Law Examiners, and as so modified, affirmed the order dismissing the remainder of the complaint (see, Koeppel v Wachtler, 141 AD2d 613 ). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Sternberger v. . McGovern
green
1 sentence1962Moreover, it has long been true that where the proof under a complaint alleging only a claim for equitable relief establishes the right to a legal remedy, that remedy may be granted even though the equitable relief is not warranted (Sternberger v. McGovern, 56 N. Y. 12, 20-21 ; April Prods, v. G. | 1 | 1962–1962 |
April Productions, Inc. v. G. Schirmer, Inc.
green
1 sentence1962Schirmer, Inc., 284 App. Div. 639, 642-644 , revd. on other grounds 308 N. Y. 366 ; see, also, City of Syracuse v. Hogan, 234 N. Y. 457 ). | 1 | 1962–1962 |
April Productions, Inc. v. G. Schirmer, Inc.
green
1 sentence1962Schirmer, Inc., 284 App. Div. 639, 642-644 , revd. on other grounds 308 N. Y. 366 ; see, also, City of Syracuse v. Hogan, 234 N. Y. 457 ). | 1 | 1962–1962 |
New York & Mount Vernon Transportation Co. v. Tyroler
neutral
1 sentence1901In New York & Mount Vernon Transportation Co. v. Tyroler ( 25 App. Div. 161 ), which was an action brought by a corporation and a director and stockholder thereof to set aside a judgment obtained against the corporation by default upon a claim of one of the defendants for his salary as an officer of the corporation, and to enjoin the enforcement of the judgment, a complaint alleging that the claim was “wholly fictitious, invalid and fraudulent to the knowledge of” the defendants who were colluding to have the property of the corporation sold under the judgment that they might buy it in at the | 1 | 1901–1901 |
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.