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.
11 New York opinions name it 4 courts 1983–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Telmark, Inc. v. C & R Farms, Inc.green2 sentences2013Inasmuch as defendant no longer has a cause of action against plaintiff for extra-contractual claims, it cannot now assert a counterclaim or affirmative defense for recoupment based upon the facts and circumstances underlying those claims (see generally Telmark, Inc., 115 AD2d at 966-967). 2013Inasmuch as defendant no longer has a cause of action against plaintiff for extra-contractual claims, it cannot now assert a counterclaim or affirmative defense for recoupment based upon the facts and circumstances underlying those claims (see generally Telmark, Inc., 115 AD2d at 966-967). | 3 | 3 |
Emigrant Mtge. Co., Inc. v. Public Adm'r of Kings Countygreen2 sentences2025Here, Defendants have failed to adequately plead the required element of justifiable reliance . ‘“[T]o state a counterclaim or affirmative defense sounding in fraud, a defendant must allege that (1) the plaintiff made a representation or a material omission of fact which was false and the plaintiff knew to be false, (2) the misrepresentation was made for the purpose of inducing the defendant to rely upon it, (3) there was justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation or material omission, and (4) injury’” (Emigrant Mortgage Company v. Public Administrator of Kings County, 207 AD3d 437, 441 [2d 2024Here, Defendants have failed to adequately plead the required element of justifiable reliance . ‘“[T]o state a counterclaim or affirmative defense sounding in fraud, a defendant must allege that (1) the plaintiff made a representation or a material omission of fact which was false and the plaintiff knew to be false, (2) the misrepresentation was made for the purpose of inducing the defendant to rely upon it, (3) there was justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation or material omission, and (4) injury’” (Emigrant Mortgage Company v. Public Administrator of Kings County, 207 AD3d 437, 441 [2d | 2 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ambac Assur. Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.
green
2 sentences2025Corp v. Countrywide Home Loans Inc., 31 NY3d 569 [2018], quoting ACA Fin. 2024Corp v. Countrywide Home Loans Inc., 31 NY3d 569 3 3 of 6 [* 3] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 09/20/2024 02:29 PM INDEX NO. 518903/2020 NYSCEF DOC. | 2 | 2024–2025 |
Sacklow v. Abramson
green
1 sentence2019Birnbach , 82 AD3d 1077, 1078 ). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
McDonnell v. Bradley
green
1 sentence2019Generally, to state a counterclaim or affirmative defense sounding in fraud, a defendant must allege that (1) the plaintiff made a representation or a material omission of fact which was false and the plaintiff knew to be false, (2) the misrepresentation was made for the purpose of inducing the defendant to rely upon it, (3) there was justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation or material omission, and (4) injury ( see McDonnell v Bradley , 109 AD3d 592, 592-593 ; Selechnik v Law Off. of Howard R. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Levy v. Kendricks
neutral
1 sentence1995If the plaintiff’s claims relate to its right to performance under the terms of an agreement, counterclaims arising out of the negotiation and events leading up to the execution of the agreement are not revived (Levy v Kendricks, 170 AD2d 387, 388 ). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Marna Construction Corp. v. Town of Huntington
neutral
1 sentence1995Corp. v Town of Huntington, 31 NY2d 854 ). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
In re the Arbitration between SCM Corp. & Fisher Park Lane Co.
green
1 sentence1995However, for the doctrine to apply, the defendant’s counterclaim or affirmative defense must arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions that form the basis of, and must be sufficiently related to, the causes of action alleged in the plaintiff’s complaint (see, Matter of SCM Corp. [Fisher Park Lane Co.], 40 NY2d 788, 791 ). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
219 Broadway Corp. v. Alexander's, Inc.
green
1 sentence1988The court for purposes of this type of motion must accept the facts as alleged in the counterclaim as true. (219 Broadway Corp. v Alexander’s, Inc., 46 NY2d 506 [1979].) Here there is a sufficient showing to support legally cognizable counterclaims for the breach of implied warranties of fitness and merchantability for a sale of goods within the scope of the UCC. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Pace v. Perk
green
1 sentence1983Were he to have made a motion to amend his answer, it would very likely have been denied, since the courts are reluctant to allow an amendment based on facts which were known prior to commencement of the action (Pace v Perk, supra, p 463 ). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.