11 New York opinions name it 1 courts 2009–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Diaz-Kamen v. Blydenburghgreen2 sentences2012In addition, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the delay in commencing this proceeding almost one year and 90 days after the occurrence of the incident will not substantially prejudice the appellant in maintaining its defense on the merits (see Matter of Gobardhan v City of New York, 64 AD3d 705 [2009]; Matter of Doyle v Elwood Union Free School Dist., 39 AD3d 544, 545-546 [2007]; Matter of White v New York City Hous. 2012In addition, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the delay in commencing this proceeding almost one year and 90 days after the occurrence of the incident will not substantially prejudice the appellant in maintaining its defense on the merits (see Matter of Gobardhan v City of New York, 64 AD3d 705 [2009]; Matter of Doyle v Elwood Union Free School Dist., 39 AD3d 544, 545-546 [2007]; Matter of White v New York City Hous. | 4 | 4 |
Alvarez v. New York City Housing Authoritygreen2 sentences2013Auth., 97 AD3d at 670; Matter of Gobardhan v City of New York, 64 AD3d 705 [2009]; Matter of Doyle v Elwood Union Free School Dist., 39 AD3d 544, 545-546 [2007]). 2013Auth., 97 AD3d at 670; Matter of Gobardhan v City of New York, 64 AD3d 705 [2009]; Matter of Doyle v Elwood Union Free School Dist., 39 AD3d 544, 545-546 [2007]). | 2 | 2 |
Felice v. Eastport/South Manor Central School Districtgreen2 sentences2011School Dist., 50 AD3d at 152 ). 2009School Dist., 50 AD3d at 152; Matter of Lorseille v New York City Hous. | 1 | 2 |
Joy v. County of Suffolkgreen1 sentence2016Under those circumstances, the fact that the petitioner could not show a reasonable excuse for the delay does not bar the granting of leave to serve a late notice of claim upon the appellant (see Matter of Joy v County of Suffolk, 89 AD3d 1025, 1027 [2011]; Matter of Rivera-Guallpa v County of Nassau, 40 AD3d 1001, 1002 [2007]; Matter of Corvera v Nassau County Health Care Corp., 38 AD3d 775, 776-777 [2007]; Matter of Tapia v New York City Health & Hosps. | 1 | 1 |
Corvera v. Nassau County Health Care Corp.green1 sentence2016Under those circumstances, the fact that the petitioner could not show a reasonable excuse for the delay does not bar the granting of leave to serve a late notice of claim upon the appellant (see Matter of Joy v County of Suffolk, 89 AD3d 1025, 1027 [2011]; Matter of Rivera-Guallpa v County of Nassau, 40 AD3d 1001, 1002 [2007]; Matter of Corvera v Nassau County Health Care Corp., 38 AD3d 775, 776-777 [2007]; Matter of Tapia v New York City Health & Hosps. | 1 | 1 |
Rivera-Guallpa v. County of Nassaugreen1 sentence2016Under those circumstances, the fact that the petitioner could not show a reasonable excuse for the delay does not bar the granting of leave to serve a late notice of claim upon the appellant (see Matter of Joy v County of Suffolk, 89 AD3d 1025, 1027 [2011]; Matter of Rivera-Guallpa v County of Nassau, 40 AD3d 1001, 1002 [2007]; Matter of Corvera v Nassau County Health Care Corp., 38 AD3d 775, 776-777 [2007]; Matter of Tapia v New York City Health & Hosps. | 1 | 1 |
In re Dominique R.green1 sentence2011Moreover, the petitioner demonstrated that her short delay in serving her original and amended notices of claim would not substantially prejudice the appellant in maintaining its defense on the merits (see Matter of Billman v Port Jervis School Dist., 84 AD3d 1367, 1369-1370 [2011]; Matter of Ambrico v Lynbrook Union Free School Dist., 71 AD3d at 763-764 ; Matter of Ruffino v City of New York, 57 AD3d 550, 551-552 [2008]; Bussey v City of New York, 50 AD3d 938, 939 [2008]; Barnes v New York City Hous. | 1 | 1 |
Billman v. Port Jervis School Districtgreen1 sentence2011Moreover, the petitioner demonstrated that her short delay in serving her original and amended notices of claim would not substantially prejudice the appellant in maintaining its defense on the merits (see Matter of Billman v Port Jervis School Dist., 84 AD3d 1367, 1369-1370 [2011]; Matter of Ambrico v Lynbrook Union Free School Dist., 71 AD3d at 763-764 ; Matter of Ruffino v City of New York, 57 AD3d 550, 551-552 [2008]; Bussey v City of New York, 50 AD3d 938, 939 [2008]; Barnes v New York City Hous. | 1 | 1 |
Bussey v. City of New Yorkgreen1 sentence2011Moreover, the petitioner demonstrated that her short delay in serving her original and amended notices of claim would not substantially prejudice the appellant in maintaining its defense on the merits (see Matter of Billman v Port Jervis School Dist., 84 AD3d 1367, 1369-1370 [2011]; Matter of Ambrico v Lynbrook Union Free School Dist., 71 AD3d at 763-764 ; Matter of Ruffino v City of New York, 57 AD3d 550, 551-552 [2008]; Bussey v City of New York, 50 AD3d 938, 939 [2008]; Barnes v New York City Hous. | 1 | 1 |
Barnes v. New York City Housing Authoritygreen1 sentence2011Auth., 262 AD2d 46, 47 [1999]). | 1 | 1 |
Troy v. Town of Hyde Parkgreen1 sentence2009School Dist., 65 AD3d 1141 [2009]; Troy v Town of Hyde Park, 63 AD3d at 914; Matter of Felice v Eastport/ South Manor Cent. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gobardhan v. City of New York
green
2 sentences2012In addition, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the delay in commencing this proceeding almost one year and 90 days after the occurrence of the incident will not substantially prejudice the appellant in maintaining its defense on the merits (see Matter of Gobardhan v City of New York, 64 AD3d 705 [2009]; Matter of Doyle v Elwood Union Free School Dist., 39 AD3d 544, 545-546 [2007]; Matter of White v New York City Hous. 2012In addition, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the delay in commencing this proceeding almost one year and 90 days after the occurrence of the incident will not substantially prejudice the appellant in maintaining its defense on the merits (see Matter of Gobardhan v City of New York, 64 AD3d 705 [2009]; Matter of Doyle v Elwood Union Free School Dist., 39 AD3d 544, 545-546 [2007]; Matter of White v New York City Hous. | 4 | 2012–2013 |
In re Ahmad C.
green
2 sentences2014School Dist., 65 AD3d at 1143 ; Matter of Felice v Eastport/South Manor Cent. 2014School Dist., 65 AD3d at 1143 ; Matter of Felice v Eastport/South Manor Cent. | 3 | 2009–2014 |
White v. New York City Housing Authority
green
2 sentences2012Auth., 38 AD3d 675 [2007]). 2012Auth., 38 AD3d 675 [2007]). | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Ambrico v. Lynbrook Union Free School District
green
1 sentence2011Moreover, the petitioner demonstrated that her short delay in serving her original and amended notices of claim would not substantially prejudice the appellant in maintaining its defense on the merits (see Matter of Billman v Port Jervis School Dist., 84 AD3d 1367, 1369-1370 [2011]; Matter of Ambrico v Lynbrook Union Free School Dist., 71 AD3d at 763-764 ; Matter of Ruffino v City of New York, 57 AD3d 550, 551-552 [2008]; Bussey v City of New York, 50 AD3d 938, 939 [2008]; Barnes v New York City Hous. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.