11 New York opinions name it 1 courts 1952–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mitchell v. Maguire Co.green1 sentence2026Plaintiff also failed to submit an affidavit of merit from a person with knowledge of the facts supporting his claim of negligence, as required by CPLR 3216(e) ( see Missos v General Motors Corp. , 30 AD3d 303, 303 [1st Dept 2006]; Fuentes v 2254 Realty Co. , 151 AD2d 355, 355 [1st Dept 1989]). | 1 | 1 |
Missos v. General Motors Corp.green1 sentence2026Plaintiff also failed to submit an affidavit of merit from a person with knowledge of the facts supporting his claim of negligence, as required by CPLR 3216(e) ( see Missos v General Motors Corp. , 30 AD3d 303, 303 [1st Dept 2006]; Fuentes v 2254 Realty Co. , 151 AD2d 355, 355 [1st Dept 1989]). | 1 | 1 |
Dayco Mechanical Services, Inc. v. Toscanigreen1 sentence2020Servs., Inc. v Toscani , 94 AD3d 1214, 1214 [2012]). | 1 | 1 |
Sin Hang Lee v. Higginsgreen1 sentence2017CPLR 8601 (b) provides that “[a] party seeking an award of fees and other expenses shall, within thirty days of final judgment in the action, submit to the court an application which sets forth (1) the facts supporting the claim that the party is a prevailing party and is eligible to receive an award under this section, (2) the amount sought, and (3) an itemized statement from every attorney or expert witness for whom fees or expenses are sought stating the actual time expended and the rate at which such fees and other expenses are claimed.” “CPLR article 86 is in derogation of the common law | 1 | 1 |
Rivers v. Corrongreen1 sentence2017CPLR 8601 (b) provides that “[a] party seeking an award of fees and other expenses shall, within thirty days of final judgment in the action, submit to the court an application which sets forth (1) the facts supporting the claim that the party is a prevailing party and is eligible to receive an award under this section, (2) the amount sought, and (3) an itemized statement from every attorney or expert witness for whom fees or expenses are sought stating the actual time expended and the rate at which such fees and other expenses are claimed.” “CPLR article 86 is in derogation of the common law | 1 | 1 |
333 Cherry LLC v. Northern Resorts, Inc.green2 sentences2012Plaintiff demonstrated entitlement to a default judgment by submitting proof of service upon the Main Street defendants, the facts supporting its claim, and the Main Street defendants’ default (see CPLR 3215 [f|; 333 Cherry LLC v Northern Resorts, Inc., 66 AD3d 1176, 1178-1179 [2009]). 2012In response, the Main Street defendants failed to establish a “reasonable excuse for delay or default” that would justify an extension of their time to answer (CPLR 3012 [d]; see Walley v Leatherstocking Healthcare, LLC, 79 AD3d 1236, 1237 [2010]; 333 Cherry LLC v Northern Resorts, Inc., 66 AD3d at 1177 ). | 1 | 1 |
Walley v. Leatherstocking Healthcare, LLCgreen1 sentence2012In response, the Main Street defendants failed to establish a “reasonable excuse for delay or default” that would justify an extension of their time to answer (CPLR 3012 [d]; see Walley v Leatherstocking Healthcare, LLC, 79 AD3d 1236, 1237 [2010]; 333 Cherry LLC v Northern Resorts, Inc., 66 AD3d at 1177 ). | 1 | 1 |
City of Mount Vernon v. Mount Vernon Housing Authoritygreen1 sentence2009Auth., 235 AD2d 516, 517 [1997]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Cierzniewskigreen1 sentence1992Since the facts supporting the defense of agency were adduced during the People’s case, the defendant’s assertion of an inconsistent defense does not preclude the requested charge (see, People v Cierzniewski, supra, at 829). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gonzalez v. New York State Department of Corrections & Community Supervision
green
1 sentence2023Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that the petitioner was not a "prevailing party" under CPLR 8601(a) and 8602(f) ( see Matter of Gonzalez v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision , 152 AD3d 680, 683 ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Seatrain Lines, Inc. v. Carcich
green
1 sentence1998Although this formality may be waived where the parties have had advance notice and no prejudice results (see, People v Parks, 41 NY2d 36 ), a defendant must establish that a substantial and identifiable segment of the community was not included in the jury pool based on a systematic exclusion of that group (see, People v Guzman, 60 NY2d 403 , cert denied 466 US 951 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
People v. Guzman
green
1 sentence1998Although this formality may be waived where the parties have had advance notice and no prejudice results (see, People v Parks, 41 NY2d 36 ), a defendant must establish that a substantial and identifiable segment of the community was not included in the jury pool based on a systematic exclusion of that group (see, People v Guzman, 60 NY2d 403 , cert denied 466 US 951 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
People v. Steele
green
1 sentence1988Furthermore, since the facts supporting the defense of agency were adduced during the People’s case, the defendant’s assertion of the inconsistent defense of alibi does not preclude the requested charge (see also, People v Steele, 26 NY2d 526 [defendant asserted inconsistent defenses of justification and alibi]). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
In re the Claim of Diaz
green
1 sentence1984The parties stipulated that the defendant was negligent, that the cost of repairs was $983.23, that the damages sustained for loss of use were $3,200, and that the facts supporting the claim for loss of use were the same as those in the two Third Department cases (Mountain View Coach Lines v Gehr, supra; Mountain View Coach Lines v Hartnett, supra), i.e., that no substitute was hired by the plaintiff during the period of repairs, plaintiff having substituted one of its own buses for the damaged bus. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Mountain View Coach Lines, Inc. v. Hartnett
neutral
1 sentence1984The parties stipulated that the defendant was negligent, that the cost of repairs was $983.23, that the damages sustained for loss of use were $3,200, and that the facts supporting the claim for loss of use were the same as those in the two Third Department cases (Mountain View Coach Lines v Gehr, supra; Mountain View Coach Lines v Hartnett, supra), i.e., that no substitute was hired by the plaintiff during the period of repairs, plaintiff having substituted one of its own buses for the damaged bus. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Linton v. Unexcelled Fireworks Co.
green
1 sentence1952The law, of course, is settled that an employer is required to plead the facts supporting his claim that he has terminated a contract of employment because of misconduct of the employee (Linton v. Unexcelled Fireworks Co., 124 N. Y. 533 ). | 1 | 1952–1952 |
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.