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 1985–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Schwarz v. Board of Regents of the University of the State of New Yorkgreen2 sentences1993Dept., 174 AD2d 802, 803 [citations omitted]; see, Matter of Schwarz v Board of Regents, 89 AD2d 711, 712 , lv denied 57 NY2d 604 ). 1991The purpose behind the requirement that a proper record be kept for each patient (8 NYCRR 29.2 [a] [3]) is in part to ensure that meaningful information is recorded in case the patient should transfer to another professional or the treating practitioner should become unavailable (Matter of Schwarz v Board of Regents, 89 AD2d 711, 712 , lv denied 57 NY2d 604 ; see, Matter of Revici v Commissioner of Educ. of State of N. Y., 154 AD2d 797, 799-800 ). | 1 | 2 |
De Peyster v. . Michaelgreen1 sentence2015The purpose behind the rule is to ensure the productive use and development of property by simplifying ownership, facilitating exchange and freeing property from unknown or embarrassing impediments to alienability (see De Peyster v Michael, 6 NY 467, 494 [1852]). | 1 | 1 |
Simpson v. Wolanskygreen1 sentence2008The purpose behind the rule articulated in these cases, that the reviewing court may not consider facts other than those relied on by the agency in making its determination, is to “permit intelligent challenge by a party aggrieved” (Matter of Simpson v Wolansky, 38 NY2d 391, 396 [1975]). | 1 | 1 |
Suslovich v. New York State Education Departmentgreen1 sentence1993Dept., 174 AD2d 802, 803 [citations omitted]; see, Matter of Schwarz v Board of Regents, 89 AD2d 711, 712 , lv denied 57 NY2d 604 ). | 1 | 1 |
Revici v. Commissioner of Educationgreen1 sentence1991The purpose behind the requirement that a proper record be kept for each patient (8 NYCRR 29.2 [a] [3]) is in part to ensure that meaningful information is recorded in case the patient should transfer to another professional or the treating practitioner should become unavailable (Matter of Schwarz v Board of Regents, 89 AD2d 711, 712 , lv denied 57 NY2d 604 ; see, Matter of Revici v Commissioner of Educ. of State of N. Y., 154 AD2d 797, 799-800 ). | 1 | 1 |
111 East 88th Partners v. Simongreen1 sentence1987(See, Jangla Realty Co. v Gravagna, 112 Misc 2d 642 [Civ Ct, Queens County 1981] [landlord’s failure to repair defective lock after being given notice of defect breaches the warranty of habitability]; see also, 111 E. 88th Partners v Simon, 106 Misc 2d 693 [Civ Ct, NY County 1980].) Clearly, the purpose behind this requirement is to protect the tenant and his or her property from criminal acts of third parties. 1 Ms. Braxton has established a legally viable defense and counterclaim based on the warranty of habitability. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Morin v. Foster
neutral
1 sentence2002The purpose behind the rule is to not curtail the discretionary power of elected officials by preventing them from choosing for themselves those professionals “with whom they are compatible” (Morin v Foster, 61 AD2d 1130, 1132 , affd 45 NY2d 287 ). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Morin v. Foster
green
1 sentence2002The purpose behind the rule is to not curtail the discretionary power of elected officials by preventing them from choosing for themselves those professionals “with whom they are compatible” (Morin v Foster, 61 AD2d 1130, 1132 , affd 45 NY2d 287 ). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Dolan v. Jaeger
green
1 sentence2002The purpose behind the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, if its three elements have been established, is to permit the jury to infer negligent conduct on the defendant’s part (see, Dolan v Jaeger, 285 AD2d 844, 846 ). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Myers v. Frankel
green
1 sentence2001Assocs. v Breslow, supra), there is no apparent rationale furthering the purposes of rent stabilization, and respondent offers none, for requiring, without regard to what terms and conditions existed in any intervening lease (cf. Myers v Frankel, 184 Misc 2d 608 [App Term, 2d Dept 2000]), that a landlord produce a decades-old lease with another tenant in order to recover from the current tenant, e.g., attorneys’ fees awardable pursuant to the current lease. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
East Eleventh Street Associates v. Breslow
green
1 sentence2001Assocs. v Breslow, supra), there is no apparent rationale furthering the purposes of rent stabilization, and respondent offers none, for requiring, without regard to what terms and conditions existed in any intervening lease (cf. Myers v Frankel, 184 Misc 2d 608 [App Term, 2d Dept 2000]), that a landlord produce a decades-old lease with another tenant in order to recover from the current tenant, e.g., attorneys’ fees awardable pursuant to the current lease. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
David v. New York City Conciliation & Appeals Board
green
1 sentence2001Moreover, while the purpose behind a requirement that a renewal lease be on the same terms and conditions as the immediately preceding lease with the same tenant is evident (see 9 NYCRR 2502.5 [c] [7] [1] [i]; [2]; cf. 9 NYCRR 2522.5 [b], [g]; and see Matter of David v New York City Conciliation & Appeals Bd., 59 NY2d 714 [1983]; East Eleventh St. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Peugh v. Davis
green
1 sentence1989The purpose behind this rule was explained in Peugh v Davis ( 96 US 332, 336-337 ): "It is an established doctrine that a court of equity will treat a deed, absolute in form, as a mortgage, when it is executed as a security for a loan of money. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Jangla Realty Co. v. Gravagna
neutral
1 sentence1987(See, Jangla Realty Co. v Gravagna, 112 Misc 2d 642 [Civ Ct, Queens County 1981] [landlord’s failure to repair defective lock after being given notice of defect breaches the warranty of habitability]; see also, 111 E. 88th Partners v Simon, 106 Misc 2d 693 [Civ Ct, NY County 1980].) Clearly, the purpose behind this requirement is to protect the tenant and his or her property from criminal acts of third parties. 1 Ms. Braxton has established a legally viable defense and counterclaim based on the warranty of habitability. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
People v. Marsh
green
1 sentence1986(See, People v Marsh, 20 NY2d 98, 101 .) Despite the unconstitutionality of this car stop, the People hope to insulate from review the police officers’ conduct by arguing that even assuming defendant has standing to contest the stop of the car, he "failed to establish standing to make his suppression motion because he neither claimed an interest in the gun seized, nor established a legitimate expectation of privacy in the zippered bag containing the gun which was found in the rear compartment of the cab.” This argument, however, totally ignores the doctrine of and purpose behind the "fruit of | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Foley v. Roche
green
1 sentence1985Thus, where factors and circumstances vitiate the purpose behind the rule, there is little or no logic in following the "Law of the Case” (Foley v Roche, 86 AD2d 887 ). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Burke v. Axelrod
green
1 sentence1985The rule has not been applied where the prior decision was not on the merits (Matter of Burke v Axelrod, 90 AD2d 577 ; Globe Indem. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.