84 New York opinions name it 7 courts 1975–2026 17 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 |
|---|---|---|
George Backer Management Corp. v. Acme Quilting Co.green2 sentences2025Corp. v Acme Quilting Co. , 46 NY2d 211, 219). "'[T]o overcome the heavy presumption that a deliberately prepared and executed written instrument manifested the true intention of the parties, evidence of a very high order is required'" ( id. , quoting George Backer Mgt. 2025Corp. v Acme Quilting Co. , 46 NY2d 211, 219). "'[T]o overcome the heavy presumption that a deliberately prepared and executed written instrument manifested the true intention of the parties, evidence of a very high order is required'" ( id. , quoting George Backer Mgt. | 9 | 21 |
Chimart Associates v. Paulgreen2 sentences2024In that regard, "there is a heavy presumption that a deliberately prepared and executed written instrument manifests the true intention of the parties" ( Chimart Assoc. v Paul , 66 NY2d 570, 574 [1986] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citation omitted]), and where such an agreement is clear and unambiguous it "must be enforced according to the [*3]plain meaning of its terms" ( Greenfield v Philles Records , 98 NY2d 562, 569 [2002]). 2024However, it is also undisputed that New York law has long recognized that "there is a heavy presumption that a deliberately prepared and executed written instrument manifest[ s] the true intention of the parties, and a correspondingly high order of evidence is required to overcome that presumption" (Chimart Assoc. v Paul, 66 NY2d 570,574 [1986] [citations, quotations marks and alteration omitted]). | 8 | 16 |
Christian v. Christiangreen2 sentences2014“Thus, while There is a heavy presumption that a deliberately prepared and executed written instrument manifests the true intention of the parties’ (Brassey v Brassey, 154 AD2d 293, 295 [1989]), an agreement between spouses or prospective spouses may be invalidated if the party challenging the agreement demonstrates that it was the product of fraud, duress, or other inequitable conduct” (Cioffi-Petrakis v Petrakis, 103 AD3d at 767 ; see Christian v Christian, 42 NY2d 63, 73 [1977]; Petracca v Petracca, 101 AD3d 695 [2012]; Weinstein v Weinstein, 36 AD3d 797, 798 [2007]; Lombardi v Lombardi, 23 2014“Thus, while There is a heavy presumption that a deliberately prepared and executed written instrument manifests the true intention of the parties’ (Brassey v Brassey, 154 AD2d 293, 295 [1989]), an agreement between spouses or prospective spouses may be invalidated if the party challenging the agreement demonstrates that it was the product of fraud, duress, or other inequitable conduct” (Cioffi-Petrakis v Petrakis, 103 AD3d at 767 ; see Christian v Christian, 42 NY2d 63, 73 [1977]; Petracca v Petracca, 101 AD3d 695 [2012]; Weinstein v Weinstein, 36 AD3d 797, 798 [2007]; Lombardi v Lombardi, 23 | 7 | 7 |
McGhee v. Odellgreen2 sentences2025"A party opposing leave to amend 'must overcome a heavy presumption of validity in favor of [permitting amendment]'" (see McGhee , 96 AD3d 449 , 450, 946 N.Y.S.2d 134 [1st Dept 2012] quoting Otis El. 2025"A party opposing leave to amend 'must overcome a heavy presumption of validity in favor of [permitting amendment]'" (see McGhee , 96 AD3d 449 , 450, 946 N.Y.S.2d 134 [1st Dept 2012] quoting Otis El. | 5 | 11 |
People v. Britogreen2 sentences2019Thus, "there is a heavy presumption that a deliberately prepared and executed written instrument manifests the true intention of the parties" ( Brassey v Brassey , 154 AD2d 293, 295 ; see Cioffi-Petrakis v Petrakis , 103 AD3d 766, 767 ). 2014“Thus, while There is a heavy presumption that a deliberately prepared and executed written instrument manifests the true intention of the parties’ (Brassey v Brassey, 154 AD2d 293, 295 [1989]), an agreement between spouses or prospective spouses may be invalidated if the party challenging the agreement demonstrates that it was the product of fraud, duress, or other inequitable conduct” (Cioffi-Petrakis v Petrakis, 103 AD3d at 767 ; see Christian v Christian, 42 NY2d 63, 73 [1977]; Petracca v Petracca, 101 AD3d 695 [2012]; Weinstein v Weinstein, 36 AD3d 797, 798 [2007]; Lombardi v Lombardi, 23 | 5 | 6 |
Weinstein v. Weinsteingreen2 sentences2014“Thus, while There is a heavy presumption that a deliberately prepared and executed written instrument manifests the true intention of the parties’ (Brassey v Brassey, 154 AD2d 293, 295 [1989]), an agreement between spouses or prospective spouses may be invalidated if the party challenging the agreement demonstrates that it was the product of fraud, duress, or other inequitable conduct” (Cioffi-Petrakis v Petrakis, 103 AD3d at 767 ; see Christian v Christian, 42 NY2d 63, 73 [1977]; Petracca v Petracca, 101 AD3d 695 [2012]; Weinstein v Weinstein, 36 AD3d 797, 798 [2007]; Lombardi v Lombardi, 23 2014“Thus, while There is a heavy presumption that a deliberately prepared and executed written instrument manifests the true intention of the parties’ (Brassey v Brassey, 154 AD2d 293, 295 [1989]), an agreement between spouses or prospective spouses may be invalidated if the party challenging the agreement demonstrates that it was the product of fraud, duress, or other inequitable conduct” (Cioffi-Petrakis v Petrakis, 103 AD3d at 767 ; see Christian v Christian, 42 NY2d 63, 73 [1977]; Petracca v Petracca, 101 AD3d 695 [2012]; Weinstein v Weinstein, 36 AD3d 797, 798 [2007]; Lombardi v Lombardi, 23 | 4 | 4 |
Davis v. South Nassau Communities Hospitalgreen2 sentences2024Discussion It is well settled that “‘leave to amend a pleading should be freely granted in the absence of prejudice to the non-moving party where the amendment is not patently lacking in merit’” (Davis v South Nassau Communities Hosp., 26 NY3d 563, 580 [2015] [citation omitted]). “[A] party opposing leave to amend ‘must overcome a heavy presumption of validity in favor of [permitting amendment]’” (McGhee v Odell, 96 AD3d 449 , 450 [1st Dept 2012] [citation omitted]), by demonstrating prejudice or surprise or that the amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit (MBIA Ins. 2024Discussion It is well settled that “‘leave to amend a pleading should be freely granted in the absence of prejudice to the non-moving party where the amendment is not patently lacking in merit’” (Davis v South Nassau Communities Hosp., 26 NY3d 563, 580 [2015] [citation omitted]). “[A] party opposing leave to amend ‘must overcome a heavy presumption of validity in favor of [permitting amendment]’” (McGhee v Odell, 96 AD3d 449 , 450 [1st Dept 2012] [citation omitted]), by demonstrating prejudice or surprise or that the amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit (MBIA Ins. | 3 | 3 |
Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivangreen2 sentences2018Prior restraints on speech are "the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights," and "any imposition of prior restraint, whatever the form, bears a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity" ( Ash v Board of Mgrs. of the 155 Condominium , 44 AD3d 324, 324-325 [1st Dept 2007] [internal quotation marks omitted], quoting Nebraska Press Assn. v Stuart , 427 US 539, 559 [1976], and Bantam Books, Inc. v Sullivan , 372 US 58, 70 [1963]; see also Rosenberg Diamond Dev. 1995Arcara v Cloud Books, supra, 68 NY2d, at 557), any law that imposes a prior restraint upon the exercise of free speech "comes to [that] Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity” (Bantam Books v Sullivan, 372 US 58, 70 [1963]; Carroll v Princess Anne, 393 US 175, 181 [1968]). | 2 | 4 |
Friedman v. Friedmangreen2 sentences2014Corp. v Acme Quilting Co., 46 NY2d 211, 219 [1978]; see True v True, 63 AD3d 1145, 1147 [2009]; Book v Book, 58 AD3d 781, 783 [2009]; Friedman v Friedman, 247 AD2d 430, 431 [1998]). 2002Plaintiffs mistaken belief that the stipulation was preserving his right to appeal the QDRO does not overcome “ ‘the heavy presumption that a deliberately prepared and executed written instrument manifested the true intention of the parties’ ” (Friedman v Friedman, 247 AD2d 430, 431 ; cf. Knickerbocker Props. v Razy, 202 AD2d 374 ). | 2 | 3 |
MBIA Insurance v. Greystone & Co.green2 sentences2024Corp. v Greystone & Co., Inc., 74 AD3d 499, 499 [1st Dept 2010]). 2024Corp. v Greystone & Co., Inc., 74 AD3d 499, 499 [1st Dept 2010]). | 2 | 2 |
Schmidt v. Magnetic Head Corp.green2 sentences2018Courts may not by construction add or excise terms, nor distort the meaning of those used and thereby make a new contract for the parties under the guise of interpreting the writing ( Schmidt v Magnetic Head Corp. , 97 AD2d 151, 157). 2018Courts may not by construction add or excise terms, nor distort the meaning of those used and thereby make a new contract for the parties under the guise of interpreting the writing ( Schmidt v Magnetic Head Corp. , 97 AD2d 151, 157). | 2 | 2 |
Book v. Bookgreen2 sentences2014Corp. v Acme Quilting Co., 46 NY2d 211, 219 [1978]; see True v True, 63 AD3d 1145, 1147 [2009]; Book v Book, 58 AD3d 781, 783 [2009]; Friedman v Friedman, 247 AD2d 430, 431 [1998]). 2014Corp. v Acme Quilting Co., 46 NY2d 211, 219 [1978]; see True v True, 63 AD3d 1145, 1147 [2009]; Book v Book, 58 AD3d 781, 783 [2009]; Friedman v Friedman, 247 AD2d 430, 431 [1998]). | 2 | 2 |
True v. Truegreen2 sentences2014Corp. v Acme Quilting Co., 46 NY2d 211, 219 [1978]; see True v True, 63 AD3d 1145, 1147 [2009]; Book v Book, 58 AD3d 781, 783 [2009]; Friedman v Friedman, 247 AD2d 430, 431 [1998]). 2014Corp. v Acme Quilting Co., 46 NY2d 211, 219 [1978]; see True v True, 63 AD3d 1145, 1147 [2009]; Book v Book, 58 AD3d 781, 783 [2009]; Friedman v Friedman, 247 AD2d 430, 431 [1998]). | 2 | 2 |
Da Silva v. Mussogreen2 sentences2014Although a mutual mistake by the parties may form the basis for reformation of a marital settlement agreement, “the mistake must be ‘so material that ... it goes to the foundation of the agreement’ ” (Simkin v Blank, 19 NY3d at 52 , quoting Da Silva v Musso, 53 NY2d 543, 552 [1981]). “[T]o overcome the heavy presumption that a deliberately prepared and executed written instrument manifested the true intention of the parties, evidence of a very high order is required” (George Backer Mgt. 2014Although a mutual mistake by the parties may form the basis for reformation of a marital settlement agreement, “the mistake must be ‘so material that ... it goes to the foundation of the agreement’ ” (Simkin v Blank, 19 NY3d at 52 , quoting Da Silva v Musso, 53 NY2d 543, 552 [1981]). “[T]o overcome the heavy presumption that a deliberately prepared and executed written instrument manifested the true intention of the parties, evidence of a very high order is required” (George Backer Mgt. | 2 | 2 |
D'Argenio v. Ashland Building, LLCgreen2 sentences2013“In reviewing a trial court’s findings of fact following a nonjury trial, this Court’s authority is as broad as that of the trial court and includes the power to render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, bearing in mind that due regard must be given to the decision of a trial judge who was in the position to assess the evidence and the credibility of witnesses” (D’Argenio v Ashland Bldg., LLC, 78 AD3d 758, 758 [2010]). 2013“In reviewing a trial court’s findings of fact following a nonjury trial, this Court’s authority is as broad as that of the trial court and includes the power to render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, bearing in mind that due regard must be given to the decision of a trial judge who was in the position to assess the evidence and the credibility of witnesses” (D’Argenio v Ashland Bldg., LLC, 78 AD3d 758, 758 [2010]). | 2 | 2 |
Cioffi-Petrakis v. Petrakisgreen2 sentences2019Thus, "there is a heavy presumption that a deliberately prepared and executed written instrument manifests the true intention of the parties" ( Brassey v Brassey , 154 AD2d 293, 295 ; see Cioffi-Petrakis v Petrakis , 103 AD3d 766, 767 ). 2014“Thus, while There is a heavy presumption that a deliberately prepared and executed written instrument manifests the true intention of the parties’ (Brassey v Brassey, 154 AD2d 293, 295 [1989]), an agreement between spouses or prospective spouses may be invalidated if the party challenging the agreement demonstrates that it was the product of fraud, duress, or other inequitable conduct” (Cioffi-Petrakis v Petrakis, 103 AD3d at 767 ; see Christian v Christian, 42 NY2d 63, 73 [1977]; Petracca v Petracca, 101 AD3d 695 [2012]; Weinstein v Weinstein, 36 AD3d 797, 798 [2007]; Lombardi v Lombardi, 23 | 1 | 3 |
Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuartgreen2 sentences2018Prior restraints on speech are "the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights," and "any imposition of prior restraint, whatever the form, bears a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity" ( Ash v Board of Mgrs. of the 155 Condominium , 44 AD3d 324, 324-325 [1st Dept 2007] [internal quotation marks omitted], quoting Nebraska Press Assn. v Stuart , 427 US 539, 559 [1976], and Bantam Books, Inc. v Sullivan , 372 US 58, 70 [1963]; see also Rosenberg Diamond Dev. 1978Thus the court came to state in Nebraska Press Assn. v Stuart ( 427 US 539, 559 , supra) that "prior restraints on speech and publication are the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights” causing any prior restraint to come before the court "with a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.” However, as the advertisements at issue do not direct their attention solely to the general public for informational purposes only, what is really at issue here is more than pretrial publicity or trial reporting. | 1 | 3 |
New York Times Co. v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2004High School Dist., 1 Misc 3d 697, 698 [Sup Ct, Nassau County 2003], quoting New York Times Co. v United States, 403 US 713, 714 [1971]). 1990Plaintiff has failed to overcome the heavy presumption against a prior restraint on publication (New York Times Co. v United States, 403 US 713 ). | 1 | 2 |
O'Halloran v. Metropolitan Transportation Authoritygreen1 sentence2025Auth. , 154 AD3d 83, 86 [1st Dept 2017]). | 1 | 1 |
| Kolbe v. Tibbettsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| National Broadcasting Co. v. Coopermangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Centro Empresarial Cempresa S.A. v. América Móvil, S.A.B. de C.V.green | 1 | 1 |
| Greenfield v. Philles Records, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Tuzzolino v. Tuzzolinogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Skotnicki v. Skotnickigreen | 1 | 1 |
| Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ash v. Board of Managers of the 155 Condominiumgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rosenberg Diamond Development Corp. v. Appelgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Anoun v. City of New Yorkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Riveragreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Enrique T.green | 1 | 1 |
| Repicci v. Sharpegreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re Venturagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Arrowsmith v. City of Rochestergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Amend v. Hurleygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Doe v. Bellmore-Merrick Central High School Districtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| D'AMICO v. Crossongreen | 1 | 1 |
| City of New Orleans v. Dukesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Continental Auto Lease Corp. v. Campbellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Marcus Associates, Inc. v. Town of Huntingtongreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Petracca v. Petracca
green
2 sentences2014“Thus, while There is a heavy presumption that a deliberately prepared and executed written instrument manifests the true intention of the parties’ (Brassey v Brassey, 154 AD2d 293, 295 [1989]), an agreement between spouses or prospective spouses may be invalidated if the party challenging the agreement demonstrates that it was the product of fraud, duress, or other inequitable conduct” (Cioffi-Petrakis v Petrakis, 103 AD3d at 767 ; see Christian v Christian, 42 NY2d 63, 73 [1977]; Petracca v Petracca, 101 AD3d 695 [2012]; Weinstein v Weinstein, 36 AD3d 797, 798 [2007]; Lombardi v Lombardi, 23 2014“Thus, while There is a heavy presumption that a deliberately prepared and executed written instrument manifests the true intention of the parties’ (Brassey v Brassey, 154 AD2d 293, 295 [1989]), an agreement between spouses or prospective spouses may be invalidated if the party challenging the agreement demonstrates that it was the product of fraud, duress, or other inequitable conduct” (Cioffi-Petrakis v Petrakis, 103 AD3d at 767 ; see Christian v Christian, 42 NY2d 63, 73 [1977]; Petracca v Petracca, 101 AD3d 695 [2012]; Weinstein v Weinstein, 36 AD3d 797, 798 [2007]; Lombardi v Lombardi, 23 | 5 | 2013–2019 |
McGill v. Polytechnic University
green
2 sentences2014“Thus, while There is a heavy presumption that a deliberately prepared and executed written instrument manifests the true intention of the parties’ (Brassey v Brassey, 154 AD2d 293, 295 [1989]), an agreement between spouses or prospective spouses may be invalidated if the party challenging the agreement demonstrates that it was the product of fraud, duress, or other inequitable conduct” (Cioffi-Petrakis v Petrakis, 103 AD3d at 767 ; see Christian v Christian, 42 NY2d 63, 73 [1977]; Petracca v Petracca, 101 AD3d 695 [2012]; Weinstein v Weinstein, 36 AD3d 797, 798 [2007]; Lombardi v Lombardi, 23 2014“Thus, while There is a heavy presumption that a deliberately prepared and executed written instrument manifests the true intention of the parties’ (Brassey v Brassey, 154 AD2d 293, 295 [1989]), an agreement between spouses or prospective spouses may be invalidated if the party challenging the agreement demonstrates that it was the product of fraud, duress, or other inequitable conduct” (Cioffi-Petrakis v Petrakis, 103 AD3d at 767 ; see Christian v Christian, 42 NY2d 63, 73 [1977]; Petracca v Petracca, 101 AD3d 695 [2012]; Weinstein v Weinstein, 36 AD3d 797, 798 [2007]; Lombardi v Lombardi, 23 | 4 | 2013–2014 |
Simkin v. Blank
green
2 sentences2014Although a mutual mistake by the parties may form the basis for reformation of a marital settlement agreement, “the mistake must be ‘so material that ... it goes to the foundation of the agreement’ ” (Simkin v Blank, 19 NY3d at 52 , quoting Da Silva v Musso, 53 NY2d 543, 552 [1981]). “[T]o overcome the heavy presumption that a deliberately prepared and executed written instrument manifested the true intention of the parties, evidence of a very high order is required” (George Backer Mgt. 2014Although a mutual mistake by the parties may form the basis for reformation of a marital settlement agreement, “the mistake must be ‘so material that ... it goes to the foundation of the agreement’ ” (Simkin v Blank, 19 NY3d at 52 , quoting Da Silva v Musso, 53 NY2d 543, 552 [1981]). “[T]o overcome the heavy presumption that a deliberately prepared and executed written instrument manifested the true intention of the parties, evidence of a very high order is required” (George Backer Mgt. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Merrick v. Merrick
neutral
2 sentences2011His assertions are insufficient to rebut “the heavy presumption that a deliberately prepared and executed written instrument manifested the true intention of the parties” (Merrick v Merrick, 181 AD2d 503 [1992] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). 1994Defendant, an attorney, failed to rebut the heavy presumption that the deliberately prepared and executed postnuptial agreement manifested the true intention of the parties (Sagan v Sagan, 53 NY2d 635 ; Merrick v Merrick, 181 AD2d 503 ). | 2 | 1994–2011 |
Trump v. Chu
green
2 sentences2007(See Trump v Chu, 65 NY2d 20 [1985], appeal dismissed 474 US 915 [1985].) It is beyond dispute that the original justification for allowing taxation of some state lands bore a rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose. 1991Taxation statutes carry a heavy presumption of constitutionality, and they should be upheld so long as they bear a rational relationship to any legitimate State purpose (see, Trump v Chu, 65 NY2d 20 , 25, appeal dismissed 474 US 915 ; Matter of Long Is. | 2 | 1991–2007 |
In Re the Estate of Vadney
green
2 sentences2001Turning to the merits, in order to overcome the heavy presumption of a tenancy in common created by EPTL 6-2.2 (a), petitioner was required to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that decedent intended to create a joint tenancy with a right of survivorship with respect to the subject notes and mortgages (see, Matter of Vadney, 83 NY2d 885, 886 ; Matter of Bonanni, 250 AD2d 1022 ). 1998In order to overcome this heavy presumption, “a correspondingly high order of evidence is required” demonstrating a clear and convincing intent to create a joint tenancy (Matter of Vadney, 193 AD2d 994, 994-995 , affd 83 NY2d 885, 886 ). | 2 | 1998–2001 |
Surlak v. Surlak
green
2 sentences1998The Supreme Court correctly concluded that “any mistake * * * was unilateral” and that the former husband failed to demonstrate any right to the requested relief (see, Surlak v Surlak, 95 AD2d 371, 380 ; see also, Matter of Scalabrini v Scalabrini, 242 AD2d 725 ; Silvers v Silvers, 196 AD2d 863 ). “[T]o overcome the heavy presumption that a deliberately prepared and executed written instrument manifested the true intention of the parties, evidence of a very high order is required” (Backer Mgt. v Acme Quilting Co., 46 NY2d 211, 219 , citing Christopher & Tenth St. 1986(Surlak v Surlak, 95 AD2d 371 .) It is clear as a matter of law that this presumption is not and cannot be overcome by the defendant in this case. | 2 | 1986–1998 |
Clifton Country Road Associates v. Vinciguerra
green
2 sentences1997Assocs. v Vinciguerra, 195 AD2d 895, 897 , lv denied 82 NY2d 664 ; see also, Vermilyea v Vermilyea, 224 AD2d 759 ). 1996Assocs. v Vinciguerra, 195 AD2d 895, 897 , lv denied 82 NY2d 664 ). | 2 | 1996–1997 |
Claim of Solomon v. Cohn, Glickstein, Lurie, Ostrin & Lubell
neutral
2 sentences1993Thus, there is a heavy presumption that the absence of an express declaration that the grantees are joint tenants results in a tenancy in common and not a joint tenancy (see, Overheiser v Lackey, 207 NY 229 ; Matter of Wachs, 50 Misc 2d 565, 568-569 ), which may be rebutted (see, Matter of Levinsky, 23 AD2d 25 , lv denied 16 NY2d 484 ; Belfanc v Belfanc, 252 App Div 453, 456, affd 278 NY 563 ; Turano, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 17B, EPTL 6-2.2, at 22), but a correspondingly high order of evidence is required to overcome the presumption (see, Chimart Assocs. v Paul, 1987Reformation will not be granted until there has been sufficient proof that the written instrument fails to embody the parties’ true intentions (Slutzky v Gallati, 97 AD2d 561 , lv denied 61 NY2d 602 ), which proof must overcome the heavy presumption that a deliberately prepared and executed written instrument manifests the intentions of the contracting parties (see, Backer Mgt. | 2 | 1987–1993 |
Montgomery v. Daniels
green
2 sentences1980Moreover, the one challenging a statute on these grounds must overcome a heavy presumption of constitutionality (Montgomery v Daniels, 38 NY2d 41, 54 ). 1977In a comparable case (New York Public Interest Research Group v Steingut, 40 NY2d 250, 257 ), dealing with a challenge to legislative action, our Court of Appeals observed: "Our deliberations must begin with an awareness of the respect due the legislative branch, which finds articulation in the precept that 'as a matter of substantive law every legislative enactment is deemed to be constitutional until its challengers have satisfied the courts to the contrary’ (Montgomery v Daniels, 38 NY2d 41, 54 ). | 2 | 1977–1980 |
Matter of Walter
green
1 sentence2026"In that regard, there is a heavy presumption that a deliberately prepared and executed written instrument manifests the true intention of the parties. . . . [A] valid release generally constitutes a complete bar to an action on a claim which is the subject of the release" (<i>Marcella v Glowacki</i>, 233 AD3d 1137 , 1140 [3d Dept 2024] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; <i>see</i> <i>Matter of Walter</i>, 180 AD3d at 1203 ).</p> <p>In November 2020, the parties executed the bankruptcy stipulation encompassing the parties' disputes and resolution of those disputes in B | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| Campbell v. Campbell green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Shipley Miller v. Cohen green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Connery v. Sultan green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| People v. Gilliam green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| In re Kranis green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Rivera v. State green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Knickerbocker Properties, Inc. v. Razy neutral | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Twiss v. Twiss green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Lewis v. Lewis neutral | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Hallock v. State green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| In re the Estate of Bonanni neutral | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| In re the Estate of Vadney neutral | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Silvers v. Silvers neutral | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| People v. Insignares green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| People v. Diggs green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| People of State of New York v. Howard green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| People v. Perez green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Weed v. Weed green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Sagan v. Sagan green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| In re the Estate of Wachs green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Overheiser v. . Lackey green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| In re the Estate of Levinsky green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.