82 New York opinions name it 13 courts 1889–2026 11 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 |
|---|---|---|
Yudell v. Gilbertgreen2 sentences2022The court properly relied on Yudell v Gilbert ( 99 AD3d 108, 115 [1st Dept 2012]) in finding that the claim [*2]was derivative in nature as it seeks damages allegedly suffered by JBMI, and that the direct claims asserted were embedded in the derivative claims. 2016If the individual claim is “confused” or “embedded” within the derivative claim, then it must be dismissed (Serino v Lipper, 123 AD3d 34, 40 [2014]; see Abrams v Donati, 66 NY2d 951, 953-954 [1985]; Yudell v Gilbert, 99 AD3d 108, 115 [2012]). | 3 | 3 |
Abrams v. Donatigreen2 sentences2019The third cause of action, which alleges breach of fiduciary duty against Gould, was correctly dismissed, because it mixes an individual claim with a derivative claim ( see Dian Kui Su v Sing Ming Chao , 150 AD3d 424 , 425 [1st Dept 2017], citing Abrams v Donati , 66 NY2d 951 [1985]). 2016If the individual claim is “confused” or “embedded” within the derivative claim, then it must be dismissed (Serino v Lipper, 123 AD3d 34, 40 [2014]; see Abrams v Donati, 66 NY2d 951, 953-954 [1985]; Yudell v Gilbert, 99 AD3d 108, 115 [2012]). | 2 | 4 |
Houston v. Trans Union Credit Information Co.green2 sentences2023Co., 154 AD2d 312, 313 (1st Dept. 1989); see Wan Li Situ v MTA Bus Co., 130 AD3d 807, 808 (2nd Dept. 2015); CPLR 3211(e). 2019Co. , 154 AD2d 312, 313 [1989]; see CPLR 3211 [e]; John R. | 2 | 3 |
Serino v. Lippergreen2 sentences2024AD3d 34, 994 NYS2d 64 [Pt Dept., 2014] the court explained that to distinguish a derivative claim .from an individual claim the court must engage in two inquiries. 2016If the individual claim is “confused” or “embedded” within the derivative claim, then it must be dismissed (Serino v Lipper, 123 AD3d 34, 40 [2014]; see Abrams v Donati, 66 NY2d 951, 953-954 [1985]; Yudell v Gilbert, 99 AD3d 108, 115 [2012]). | 1 | 2 |
Rodeen v. Axelrodgreen2 sentences2017Because there is no res judicata impact upon putative class members ( see Rodden v. Axelrod, 79 A.D.2d 29 , 32, 436 N.Y.S.2d 373 [3d Dept. 1981] ), their ability to bring their own claims is unimpaired and they are, therefore, not impacted by the resolution of the named plaintiff's individual claim. 4 Under these circumstances, it is difficult to understand why the Avena court would invoke fiduciary considerations in the pre-certification *1274 **403 context and hold that CPLR 908 should apply to even a settlement that is without prejudice to the putative class. 2017Because there is no res judicata impact upon putative class members ( see Rodden v. Axelrod, 79 A.D.2d 29 , 32, 436 N.Y.S.2d 373 [3d Dept. 1981] ), their ability to bring their own claims is unimpaired and they are, therefore, not impacted by the resolution of the named plaintiff's individual claim. 4 Under these circumstances, it is difficult to understand why the Avena court would invoke fiduciary considerations in the pre-certification *1274 **403 context and hold that CPLR 908 should apply to even a settlement that is without prejudice to the putative class. | 1 | 2 |
Fermin-Perea v. Swartsgreen1 sentence2026An officer has probable cause to arrest an individual for violation of VTL § 1192 (1) or (3) where the officer had a reasonable belief that an individual was operating a vehicle in an impaired or intoxicated state ( Fermin-Perea v Swarts , 95 AD3d 439, 441 [1st Dept 2012]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Figginsgreen1 sentence2024In any event, because "defendant violate[d] . . . condition[s] of the plea agreement" by, inter alia, admittedly attempting to contact an individual in violation of an order of protection, "the court [was] no longer bound by the agreement and [was] free to impose a greater sentence" ( id. [internal quotation marks omitted]) without the need "to afford defendant an opportunity to challenge the foundation of his postplea arrest[ ]" ( People v Figgins , 87 NY2d 840, 841 [1995]; see People v Outley , 80 NY2d 702, 712-713 [1993]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Outleygreen1 sentence2024In any event, because "defendant violate[d] . . . condition[s] of the plea agreement" by, inter alia, admittedly attempting to contact an individual in violation of an order of protection, "the court [was] no longer bound by the agreement and [was] free to impose a greater sentence" ( id. [internal quotation marks omitted]) without the need "to afford defendant an opportunity to challenge the foundation of his postplea arrest[ ]" ( People v Figgins , 87 NY2d 840, 841 [1995]; see People v Outley , 80 NY2d 702, 712-713 [1993]). | 1 | 1 |
Aguaiza v. Vantage Properties, LLCgreen1 sentence2024Individual defendants may be found personally liable for a harassment claim as employees or corporate officers if they are found to be "de facto owners of the corporate landlord entities or participated in tortious conduct" (Aguaiza v Vantage Props., LLC, 69 AD3d 422,424 [1st Dept 2010] [internal citations omitted]). | 1 | 1 |
Canzona v. Atanasiogreen1 sentence2024Thus, Plaintiff is asserting an individual claim and the question now turns to whether Plaintiff has asserted the elements necessary to establish a breach of contract against the Co-Op. "The essential elements of a breach of contract cause of action are the existence of a contract, the plaintiff's performance pursuant to the contract, the defendant's breach of his or her [or its] contractual obligations, and damages resulting from the breach" (Canzona v Atanasio, 118 AD3d 837, 838 [2d Dept 2014] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). | 1 | 1 |
Wan Li Situ v. MTA Bus Co.green1 sentence2023Co., 154 AD2d 312, 313 (1st Dept. 1989); see Wan Li Situ v MTA Bus Co., 130 AD3d 807, 808 (2nd Dept. 2015); CPLR 3211(e). | 1 | 1 |
Malone v. Brincatgreen1 sentence2020Defendants' fiduciary duty runs to plaintiff as a member of the LLC, not to allow him to obtain information so that he could take the investment opportunity for himself ( see Malone v Brincat , 722 A2d 5, 12 [Del 1998]). | 1 | 1 |
Harper Investments, Inc. v. Harper-Kilgore, LLCgreen1 sentence2019The fourth cause of action, which alleges that Gould transferred Austin's interest in Stonemar MM Jackson, LLC, to his (Gould's) wife without consideration or consent, was correctly dismissed, because "[t]he conversion of intangible property is not actionable" ( Sun Gold, Corp. v Stillman , 95 AD3d 668, 669 [1st Dept 2012]). | 1 | 1 |
Baxter v. Palmigianogreen1 sentence2019While the Fifth Amendment accords an individual the privilege not to answer questions in a civil proceeding if the answers might incriminate the person in future criminal proceedings (see Baxter v Palmigiano, 425 US 308, 316 [1976]), a witness who asserts this Fifth Amendment privilege in a civil trial is not necessarily protected from consequences in the same manner as in a criminal trial. | 1 | 1 |
Marine Midland Bank v. John E. Russo Produce Co.green1 sentence2019This Court has held that, in a civil case, failure to answer questions by a witness who is a party “may be considered by a jury in assessing the strength of evidence offered by the opposite party on the issue which the - 19 - - 20 - No. 39 witness was in a position to controvert” (Marine Midland Bank v Russo Produce Co., 50 NY2d 31, 42 [1980]). | 1 | 1 |
De Vita v. Reabgreen1 sentence2018However, this cause of action is barred by the four-month statute of limitations applicable to a challenge to a corporate election ( see De Vita v Reab , 155 AD2d 302, 303 [1st Dept 1989]). | 1 | 1 |
Martinez v. City of Schenectadygreen1 sentence2016Even assuming that the articles of the State Constitution that establish the separation of powers doctrine are self-executing provisions that can sometimes support an individual claim for money damages (see 62 NY Jur 2d, Government Tort Liability § 28), the State’s particular violation of the doctrine here did not meet the remaining typical prerequisites for a damages award, such as the requirements that alternative remedies are inadequate to remedy the harm, that monetary relief is needed to deter future constitutional violations and that a monetary remedy has been historically recognized at | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. State of New Yorkgreen1 sentence2016Even assuming that the articles of the State Constitution that establish the separation of powers doctrine are self-executing provisions that can sometimes support an individual claim for money damages (see 62 NY Jur 2d, Government Tort Liability § 28), the State’s particular violation of the doctrine here did not meet the remaining typical prerequisites for a damages award, such as the requirements that alternative remedies are inadequate to remedy the harm, that monetary relief is needed to deter future constitutional violations and that a monetary remedy has been historically recognized at | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Williamsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Venturagreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Young Min Kwakgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Benetgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Mejiasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Bufordgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Lantiguagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Turner III v. Irving Finkelstein & Meirowitz, LLPgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Peak v. Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes, P.C.green | 1 | 1 |
| Garten v. Shearman & Sterling LLPgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. VanDeWallegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Berkowitz v. Fischbein, Badillo, Wagner & Hardinggreen | 1 | 1 |
| Aranki v. Goldman & Associates, LLPgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Englishgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Cialinogreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Ericksongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Constantine v. Letogreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Hampegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Winbush v. Goordgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Blackwell v. Goordgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Witkowski v. Goordgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Cameron v. Knappgreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Spofford v. . Rowan
neutral
2 sentences1898Spofford v. Rowan, 124 N. Y. 108 . 1895Spofford v. Rowan, 124 N. Y. 108 ; 35 St. | 3 | 1895–1898 |
People v. Hollman
green
2 sentences1999Further, an individual may challenge a statute as over-broad “only when the statute’s unconstitutional reach is substantial and the statute is incapable of a reasonable limiting construction” (People v Hollman, 68 NY2d 202, 208 ). 1999Further, an individual may challenge a statute as over-broad “only when the statute’s unconstitutional reach is substantial and the statute is incapable of a reasonable limiting construction” (People v Hollman, 68 NY2d 202, 208 ). | 2 | 1999–1999 |
Nieves v. United States
green
2 sentences1970True it may be that defendant could have had a jury trial by not seeking consideration as a youthful offender, but ‘ ‘ Where a reward is held out to an individual for the waiver of a constitutional right, or a greater threat posed for choosing to assert it, any waiver may be said to have been extracted in an impermissible manner.” (Nieves v. United States, 280 F. Supp. 994, 1001 , supra.) Similarly, we see no validity to the contention that there was no violation of defendant’s right to due process because he declined to risk his chances with a jury and induced the proceeding of which he now c 1970(See Nieves v. United States, 280 F. Supp. 994 , supra.) In rejecting the Government’s argument that the defendant’s right to refuse such treatment preserved the validity of the statute, the court wrote: “ Where a reward is held out to an individual for the waiver of a constitutional right, or a greater threat posed for choosing to assert it, any waiver may be said to have been extracted in an impermissible manner. | 2 | 1970–1970 |
Winegrad v. New York University Medical Center
green
1 sentence2024Center, 64 NY2d 851 , 1 Individual defendants Yokaty Fernandez and Diosmary Fernandez signed the Assignment of Lease individually and Yokaty Fernandez also signed on behalf of Lindo Depsertar Grocery Corp. The Complaint alleges that Bahram Hakakian owned, operated, and managed the Premises, although he is not named in the Lease or Assignment. 156897/2019 SABA, MIGUEL vs. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Kenford Co. v. County of Erie
green
1 sentence2024Damages relating to a breach of contract "may not be merely speculative, possible or imaginary, but must be reasonably certain and directly traceable to the breach, not remote or the result of other intervening causes" (Kenford Co. v County ofErie, 67 NY2d 257,261 [1986]). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Martinez v. Alubon, Ltd.
green
1 sentence2022We point the dissent to the only State court decision to date that has permitted an individual claim for recovery under section 198-b, but note that it did so in a case where defendants did not challenge plaintiff’s entitlement to a private right of action (see Martinez v Alubon, Ltd., 111 AD3d 500 [1st Dept 2013]). -9- RIVERA, J. (dissenting): Plaintiff Ersin Konkur worked as a teacher and claims that his employer and a third party threatened his employment unless he turned over part of the money he earned on the job. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Raspardo v. Carlone
green
1 sentence2022Individual defendant liability only attaches when his or her own conduct is sufficiently severe and pervasive to create the hostile [*3]work environment; otherwise, that defendant is protected by qualified immunity ( see Raspardo v Carlone , 770 F3d at 115 ). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Williams
green
1 sentence2020The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in declining to conduct an individual inquiry of each juror with regard to an article published in Newsday on the second day of their deliberations, since, when questioned collectively, no juror indicated that they had seen or [*2]discussed the day's edition of Newsday, and during the course of the trial, the court repeatedly instructed the jury not discuss the case and not to view or listen to any news media related to the case ( see People v Williams , 78 AD3d 160, 167 ; People v Rivera , 31 AD3d 790, 790-791 ). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Suitte
green
1 sentence2020The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v Suitte , 90 AD2d 80 ). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Rivera
green
1 sentence2020The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in declining to conduct an individual inquiry of each juror with regard to an article published in Newsday on the second day of their deliberations, since, when questioned collectively, no juror indicated that they had seen or [*2]discussed the day's edition of Newsday, and during the course of the trial, the court repeatedly instructed the jury not discuss the case and not to view or listen to any news media related to the case ( see People v Williams , 78 AD3d 160, 167 ; People v Rivera , 31 AD3d 790, 790-791 ). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Kuzdzal
green
1 sentence2019The court's decision to investigate the jurors' allegations of spectator misconduct by having counsel conduct a thorough independent inquiry of the spectators outside the presence of the jury, followed by the court delivering a curative instruction assuring the jury that the concerns had been unfounded and should not influence the jury's deliberations, was an appropriate exercise of the court's discretion ( see People v Kuzdzal , 31 NY3d 478, 485-486 ; cf. People v Argendorf , 76 AD3d 1100 , 1100-1101). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Pastore
green
1 sentence2019The third cause of action, which alleges breach of fiduciary duty against Gould, was correctly dismissed, because it mixes an individual claim with a derivative claim ( see Dian Kui Su v Sing Ming Chao , 150 AD3d 424 , 425 [1st Dept 2017], citing Abrams v Donati , 66 NY2d 951 [1985]). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| People v. Roland green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| People v. Thompson neutral | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Baliotti v. Walkes green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Berkowitz v. Fischbein green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Chernow v. Chernow green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Mann v. Malasky green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Keating v. Nanuet Board of Education green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Burgess v. Goord green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| In re the Estate of Jacobs green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Brown v. State green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Murphy v. State green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Powlowski v. Wullich green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Oak Hill Country Club v. Town of Pittsford green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Wilmington Trust Co. v. Aerovias De Mexico green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| United States v. Rauscher green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Ker v. Illinois green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. Et Al. v. Sawyer; And Sawyer, Secretary of Commerce, v. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. Et Al. green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Frisbie v. Collins green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Stavitz v. City of New York green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Austin v. Board of Higher Education green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| General Accident Insurance Group v. Cirucci green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Solnick v. Whalen green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Squire Records, Inc. v. Vanguard Recording Society, Inc. 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.