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 2 courts 2007–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Fergusongreen2 sentences2014In addition, as this Court previously noted, it was not error to rely on evidence in the related Gen Re criminal trial, as the convictions had not been overturned at the time of the court’s ruling (id. at 484 n 3; see United States v Ferguson, 676 F3d 260, 289 [2011]). 2014In addition, as this Court previously noted, it was not error to rely on evidence in the related Gen Re criminal trial, as the convictions had not been overturned at the time of the court’s ruling (id. at 484 n 3; see United States v Ferguson, 676 F3d 260, 289 [2011]). | 2 | 2 |
Ortiz v. Varsity Holdings, LLCgreen1 sentence2024To the extent that defendants claim that plaintiff failed to identify a safety device that could have prevented his accident ( see generally Ortiz v Varsity Holdings, LLC , 18 NY3d 335, 340 [2011]), at least two possible devices are apparent on the face of the record, namely either a covering or bridge over the beam pocket or a tie-off point for plaintiff's harness. | 1 | 1 |
Victoria's Secret Stores, LLC v. Herald Sq. Owner LLCgreen1 sentence2024Owner LLC, 211 AD3d 657, 657 [1st Dept 2022] [finding that a holdover rent at three times the monthly rent was not an unenforceable penalty]). | 1 | 1 |
Sprole v. Sprolegreen1 sentence2022Ctr. , 174 AD3d 1191 , 1194 [2019]; Sprole v Sprole , 151 AD3d 1413, 1415 [2017]). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Bynum v. Camp Bisco, LLCgreen1 sentence2020Footnote 3: To the extent that defendants claim that Supreme Court should not have granted leave to serve the second amended complaint, defendants did not argue surprise or prejudice, and the proposed amendments are not "palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit" ( Bynum v Camp Bisco, LLC , 155 AD3d 1503, 1504 [2017] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). | 1 | 1 |
Gridley v. Syrkogreen1 sentence2020Laser Ctr. , 121 AD3d 1560 , 1561 [4th Dept 2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 911 [2015]; Matter of Gridley v Syrko , 50 AD3d 1560, 1561 [4th Dept 2008]). | 1 | 1 |
Tovar v. Tesoros Property Management, LLCgreen1 sentence2015Mgt., LLC, 119 AD3d at 1129; Matter of Feldman v Planning Bd. of the Town of Rochester, 99 AD3d 1161 , 1162-1163 [2012]). | 1 | 1 |
Parochial Bus Systems, Inc. v. Board of Educationgreen1 sentence2011Nonetheless, to the extent that defendants challenge Supreme Court’s determination rejecting their argument that transfer and vesting of title to the real property to defendants had occurred, “the arguments raised in their brief may be considered [by this Court] as alternative grounds for affirmance” (Matter of Eck v County of Delaware, 36 AD3d 1180 , 1181 n [2007]; see Parochial Bus Sys. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 60 NY2d 539, 544-547 [1983]). . | 1 | 1 |
Whalen v. Gerzofgreen1 sentence2009Therefore, enforceability of the assignment did not require a showing of consideration (see General Obligations Law § 5-1107; Whalen v Gerzof, 206 AD2d 688, 691 [1994], lv denied 84 NY2d 809 [1994]). | 1 | 1 |
Colgate Scaffolding & Equipment Corp. v. York Hunter City Services, Inc.green1 sentence2007Corp. v York Hunter City Servs., Inc., 14 AD3d 345, 346-347 [2005]). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Greenberg
green
2 sentences2014To the extent that defendants challenge the court’s various credibility determinations in its order, entered October 21, 2010, this Court has already adjudicated those issues and declined to reassign the matter at that time ( 95 AD3d 474 [1st Dept 2012], affd 21 NY3d 439 [2013]). 2014To the extent that defendants challenge the court’s various credibility determinations in its order, entered October 21, 2010, this Court has already adjudicated those issues and declined to reassign the matter at that time ( 95 AD3d 474 [1st Dept 2012], affd 21 NY3d 439 [2013]). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Greenberg
green
2 sentences2014To the extent that defendants challenge the court’s various credibility determinations in its order, entered October 21, 2010, this Court has already adjudicated those issues and declined to reassign the matter at that time ( 95 AD3d 474 [1st Dept 2012], affd 21 NY3d 439 [2013]). 2014To the extent that defendants challenge the court’s various credibility determinations in its order, entered October 21, 2010, this Court has already adjudicated those issues and declined to reassign the matter at that time ( 95 AD3d 474 [1st Dept 2012], affd 21 NY3d 439 [2013]). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Bovee v. Posniewski Enters., Inc.
green
1 sentence2026Further, to the extent that defendants claim that they are entitled to judgment because Grant was merely speculating as to the cause of his fall, we are unpersuaded. "[E]ven when a plaintiff is unable to identify the cause of a fall with certainty, a case of negligence based wholly on circumstantial evidence may be established if the plaintiff shows facts and conditions from which the negligence of the defendant and the causation of the accident by that negligence may be reasonably inferred" ( Bovee v Posniewski Enters., Inc. , 206 AD3d 1112 , 1113 [3d Dept 2022] [internal quotation marks and | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Salovin v. Orange Regional Med. Ctr.
green
1 sentence2022Ctr. , 174 AD3d 1191 , 1194 [2019]; Sprole v Sprole , 151 AD3d 1413, 1415 [2017]). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
McIntosh v. Genesee Valley Laser Centre
green
1 sentence2020Laser Ctr. , 121 AD3d 1560 , 1561 [4th Dept 2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 911 [2015]; Matter of Gridley v Syrko , 50 AD3d 1560, 1561 [4th Dept 2008]). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
O'Brien v. City of Syracuse
green
1 sentence2015Moreover, to the extent that defendants challenge the authority of plaintiff to impose those dues as never having been established, such a claim could have been raised in the prior action and, therefore, it is likewise barred by res judicata (see O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d at 357-358 ; Tovar v Tesoros Prop. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Feldman v. Planning Board of Rochester
green
1 sentence2015Mgt., LLC, 119 AD3d at 1129; Matter of Feldman v Planning Bd. of the Town of Rochester, 99 AD3d 1161 , 1162-1163 [2012]). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Eck v. County of Delaware
green
1 sentence2011Nonetheless, to the extent that defendants challenge Supreme Court’s determination rejecting their argument that transfer and vesting of title to the real property to defendants had occurred, “the arguments raised in their brief may be considered [by this Court] as alternative grounds for affirmance” (Matter of Eck v County of Delaware, 36 AD3d 1180 , 1181 n [2007]; see Parochial Bus Sys. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 60 NY2d 539, 544-547 [1983]). . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.