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 1 courts 2006–2020 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Northern Westchester Professional Park Associates v. Town of Bedfordgreen2 sentences2017“This Court possesses authority to review a determination rendered after a hearing that is as broad as that of the hearing court, and may render the determination it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that, in a close case, the hearing court had the advantage of seeing the witnesses” (HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Hamilton, 116 AD3d 663, 663 [2014]; see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Fred Shore Beach Club, Inc. v Palmieri, 113 AD3d 648 [2014]). 2014This Court possesses authority to review a determination rendered after a hearing that is as broad as that of the hearing court, and may render the determination it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that, in a close case, the hearing court had the advantage of seeing the witnesses (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Lopez v DePietro, 82 AD3d 715, 716 [2011]; American Home Mtge. v Villaflor, 80 AD3d 637 [2011]). | 9 | 9 |
Lopez v. DePietrogreen2 sentences2014This Court possesses authority to review a determination rendered after a hearing that is as broad as that of the hearing court, and may render the determination it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that, in a close case, the hearing court had the advantage of seeing the witnesses (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Lopez v DePietro, 82 AD3d 715, 716 [2011]; American Home Mtge. v Villaflor, 80 AD3d 637 [2011]). 2014This Court possesses authority to review a determination rendered after a hearing that is as broad as that of the hearing court, and may render the determination it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that, in a close case, the hearing court had the advantage of seeing the witnesses (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Lopez v DePietro, 82 AD3d 715, 716 [2011]; American Home Mtge. v Villaflor, 80 AD3d 637 [2011]). | 5 | 5 |
Goshen Mortgage, LLC v. Ezaguigreen1 sentence2020"This Court possesses authority to review a determination rendered after a hearing that is as broad as that of the hearing court, and may render the determination it finds warranted by the facts" ( Goshen Mtge., LLC v Ezagui , 148 AD3d 782, 783 [internal quotation marks omitted]). | 1 | 1 |
Grinshpun v. Borokhovichgreen1 sentence2017The affidavits of plaintiffs’ process server describing defendant as the person who accepted service of the summons, complaint, and notice of pendency, constituted prima facie evidence of proper service (see Grinshpun v Borokhovich, 100 AD3d 551, 552 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 857 [2013]; Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Edwards, 95 AD3d 692 [1st Dept 2012]). | 1 | 1 |
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Chaplingreen1 sentence2017Here, the hearing court’s determination that Minsky was properly served was supported by the credible evidence adduced at the hearing (see Fred Shore Beach Club, Inc. v Palmieri, 113 AD3d at 648 ; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Chaplin, 100 AD3d 744, 745 [2012]; Lopez v DePietro, 82 AD3d 715, 716 [2011]). | 1 | 1 |
HSBC Bank USA v. Hamiltongreen1 sentence2017“This Court possesses authority to review a determination rendered after a hearing that is as broad as that of the hearing court, and may render the determination it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that, in a close case, the hearing court had the advantage of seeing the witnesses” (HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Hamilton, 116 AD3d 663, 663 [2014]; see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Fred Shore Beach Club, Inc. v Palmieri, 113 AD3d 648 [2014]). | 1 | 1 |
Perez v. Fioregreen1 sentence2012“This Court possesses the authority to review a determination rendered after a hearing which is as broad as that of the hearing court, and may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case, the referee had the advantage of seeing the witnesses” (Perez v Fiore, 78 AD3d 1143, 1144 [2010]; see Vardon, Inc. v Suga Dev., LLC, 36 AD3d 897, 898 [2007]; Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]). | 1 | 1 |
Vardon, Inc. v. Suga Development, LLCgreen1 sentence2012“This Court possesses the authority to review a determination rendered after a hearing which is as broad as that of the hearing court, and may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case, the referee had the advantage of seeing the witnesses” (Perez v Fiore, 78 AD3d 1143, 1144 [2010]; see Vardon, Inc. v Suga Dev., LLC, 36 AD3d 897, 898 [2007]; Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]). | 1 | 1 |
Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Pestanogreen1 sentence2010Trust Co. v Pestano, 71 AD3d 1074, 1075 [2010]; Melius v Breslin, 46 AD3d 524, 525 [2007]; Betsy Meyer Assoc., Inc. v Lorber, 42 AD3d 509 [2007]). | 1 | 1 |
Melius v. Breslingreen1 sentence2010Trust Co. v Pestano, 71 AD3d 1074, 1075 [2010]; Melius v Breslin, 46 AD3d 524, 525 [2007]; Betsy Meyer Assoc., Inc. v Lorber, 42 AD3d 509 [2007]). | 1 | 1 |
Krimstock v. Kellyred1 sentence2006In its decision, OATH recognized that proof of these elements by a preponderance of the evidence would suffice to entitle the City to prevail on the retention issue as against Mr. Harris (see Krimstock, 306 F3d at 67; Canavan, 1 NY3d at 144-145 ). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
American Home Mortgage v. Villaflor
green
2 sentences2014This Court possesses authority to review a determination rendered after a hearing that is as broad as that of the hearing court, and may render the determination it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that, in a close case, the hearing court had the advantage of seeing the witnesses (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Lopez v DePietro, 82 AD3d 715, 716 [2011]; American Home Mtge. v Villaflor, 80 AD3d 637 [2011]). 2014This Court possesses authority to review a determination rendered after a hearing that is as broad as that of the hearing court, and may render the determination it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that, in a close case, the hearing court had the advantage of seeing the witnesses (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Lopez v DePietro, 82 AD3d 715, 716 [2011]; American Home Mtge. v Villaflor, 80 AD3d 637 [2011]). | 4 | 2014–2014 |
Aronauer v. Ohl
neutral
2 sentences2014Although, as a general matter, we do not lightly disturb findings that are based upon conflicting evidence and implicate the credibility of witnesses, the evidence adduced at the hearing warrants a reversal of the Supreme Court’s determination that process was properly effected upon Holt (see Matter of Chemical Bank v Davis, 133 AD2d 756 [1987]; Aronauer v Ohl, 80 AD2d 592 [1981]). 2014Although, as a general matter, we do not lightly disturb findings that are based upon conflicting evidence and implicate the credibility of witnesses, the evidence adduced at the hearing warrants a reversal of the Supreme Court’s determination that process was properly effected upon Holt (see Matter of Chemical Bank v Davis, 133 AD2d 756 [1987]; Aronauer v Ohl, 80 AD2d 592 [1981]). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Chemical Bank v. Davis
green
2 sentences2014Although, as a general matter, we do not lightly disturb findings that are based upon conflicting evidence and implicate the credibility of witnesses, the evidence adduced at the hearing warrants a reversal of the Supreme Court’s determination that process was properly effected upon Holt (see Matter of Chemical Bank v Davis, 133 AD2d 756 [1987]; Aronauer v Ohl, 80 AD2d 592 [1981]). 2014Although, as a general matter, we do not lightly disturb findings that are based upon conflicting evidence and implicate the credibility of witnesses, the evidence adduced at the hearing warrants a reversal of the Supreme Court’s determination that process was properly effected upon Holt (see Matter of Chemical Bank v Davis, 133 AD2d 756 [1987]; Aronauer v Ohl, 80 AD2d 592 [1981]). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Wells Fargo Bank v. Edwards
green
1 sentence2017The affidavits of plaintiffs’ process server describing defendant as the person who accepted service of the summons, complaint, and notice of pendency, constituted prima facie evidence of proper service (see Grinshpun v Borokhovich, 100 AD3d 551, 552 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 857 [2013]; Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Edwards, 95 AD3d 692 [1st Dept 2012]). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Fred Shore Beach Club, Inc. v. Palmieri
green
2 sentences2017Here, the hearing court’s determination that Minsky was properly served was supported by the credible evidence adduced at the hearing (see Fred Shore Beach Club, Inc. v Palmieri, 113 AD3d at 648 ; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Chaplin, 100 AD3d 744, 745 [2012]; Lopez v DePietro, 82 AD3d 715, 716 [2011]). 2017“This Court possesses authority to review a determination rendered after a hearing that is as broad as that of the hearing court, and may render the determination it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that, in a close case, the hearing court had the advantage of seeing the witnesses” (HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Hamilton, 116 AD3d 663, 663 [2014]; see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Fred Shore Beach Club, Inc. v Palmieri, 113 AD3d 648 [2014]). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
King v. Gil
neutral
1 sentence2011Here, the hearing court’s determination that the defendant Melvin Villaflor was properly served pursuant to CPLR 308 (1) was supported by the credible testimony of the process server adduced at the hearing (see King v Gil, 69 AD3d 678 [2010]; Federal Fin. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Betsy Meyer Associates, Inc. v. Lorber
green
1 sentence2010Trust Co. v Pestano, 71 AD3d 1074, 1075 [2010]; Melius v Breslin, 46 AD3d 524, 525 [2007]; Betsy Meyer Assoc., Inc. v Lorber, 42 AD3d 509 [2007]). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
County of Nassau v. Canavan
green
1 sentence2006In its decision, OATH recognized that proof of these elements by a preponderance of the evidence would suffice to entitle the City to prevail on the retention issue as against Mr. Harris (see Krimstock, 306 F3d at 67; Canavan, 1 NY3d at 144-145 ). | 1 | 2006–2006 |