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 3 courts 2001–2024 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Leon v. Martinezgreen2 sentences2014Defendant’s moving submission fell far short of conclusively establishing its claimed defense that Muhammed “withdrew” from his course of study “at his own request” pursuant to a “Leave of Absence Petition” that he filed on November 5, 2009, beyond the fourth week of the academic semester and thus, the argument goes, untimely under defendant’s published “Refund Schedule.” In so arguing, defendant conveniently omits any reference — either in its motion papers below or its appellate brief to this court — to a November 3, 2009 letter written to Muhammed by one of defendant’s London-based employee 2004Taking the above allegations as true (see Gingold v Beekman, 183 AD2d 870 [1992]), and according the plaintiff “the benefit of every possible favorable inference” (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]), we agree with the Supreme Court that the complaint alleges a viable breach of contract claim. | 2 | 2 |
Hui Min Li v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2024With respect the causes of action for contribution or common law indemnification, it has generally been held that default is not warranted until liability is established in the main action. (see IMP Plumbing & Heating Corp. v. 317 E. 34th St., LLC, 89 A.D.3d 593, 594 [1st Dept 2011], 157512/2022 GARCIA-GUZMAN, HUGO vs. 200 EAST 16TH STREET HOUSING CORPORATION Page 3 of 4 ET AL Motion No. 001 3 of 4 [* 3] !FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/13/2024 01: 01 PM] INDEX NO. 157512/2022 NYSCEF DOC. 2024With respect the causes of action for contribution or common law indemnification, it has generally been held that default is not warranted until liability is established in the main action. (see IMP Plumbing & Heating Corp. v. 3 I 7 E. 34th St., LLC, 89 A.D.3d 593 , 594 [1st Dept 2011], citing Multari v. Glalin Arms Corp., 28 A.D.2d 122 [2d Dept 1967], appeal dismissed23 N.Y.2d 740 [1968]). | 1 | 4 |
Waldman v. New Phone Dimensions, Inc.green1 sentence2016Defendants are correct that the dispute over how inventory was accounted for must focus on the specific clauses in the contract dealing with inventory, rather than general representations that the financial statements comply with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) (see Waldman v New Phone Dimensions, 109 AD2d 702, 704 [1st Dept 1985], appeal dismissed 65 NY2d 784 [1985]). | 1 | 1 |
Michael E. Wallace, David Jacaruso and Joseph Scotti v. Daljit S. Buttar and Paramjit Buttar, Robert Winston, Additionalgreen1 sentence2016This claim sufficed as a “barely colorable basis” for the award (Matter of Roffler v Spear, Leeds & Kellogg, 13 AD3d 308, 310 [1st Dept 2004]; see Wallace, 378 F3d at 190 ). | 1 | 1 |
Roffler v. Spear, Leeds & Kellogggreen1 sentence2016This claim sufficed as a “barely colorable basis” for the award (Matter of Roffler v Spear, Leeds & Kellogg, 13 AD3d 308, 310 [1st Dept 2004]; see Wallace, 378 F3d at 190 ). | 1 | 1 |
Kronos, Inc. v. AVX Corp.green1 sentence2007While it is true that a party may, under certain circumstances, vindicate its contractual rights through the recovery of nominal damages (see Kronos, Inc. v AVX Corp., 81 NY2d 90, 96 [1993]), in view of the sparse evidence as to any breach of the separation agreement on the part of Molin, as well as the fact that plaintiffs themselves appear to have breached the agreement, and the proof showing that the agreement’s noncompete provision, allegedly disclosed by Molin in violation of the agreement’s confidentiality provisions, was commonly known by those practicing in the area of business in whic | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Multari v. Glalin Arms Corp.
green
2 sentences2024With respect the causes of action for contribution or common law indemnification, it has generally been held that default is not warranted until liability is established in the main action. (see IMP Plumbing & Heating Corp. v. 3 I 7 E. 34th St., LLC, 89 A.D.3d 593 , 594 [1st Dept 2011], citing Multari v. Glalin Arms Corp., 28 A.D.2d 122 [2d Dept 1967], appeal dismissed23 N.Y.2d 740 [1968]). 2024With respect the causes of action for contribution or common law indemnification, it has generally I been held that default is not warranted until liability is established in the main action. (see IMP Plumbing & Heating Corp. v. 317 E. 34th St., LLC, 89 A.D.3d 593 , 594 [1st Dept 2011], citing Multari v. Glalin Arms Corp., 28 A.D.2d 122 [2d Dept 1967], appeal dismissed 23 N.Y.2d 740 [1968]). | 3 | 2024–2024 |
Multari v. Glalin Arms Corp.
neutral
2 sentences2024With respect the causes of action for contribution or common law indemnification, it has generally I been held that default is not warranted until liability is established in the main action. (see IMP Plumbing & Heating Corp. v. 317 E. 34th St., LLC, 89 A.D.3d 593 , 594 [1st Dept 2011], citing Multari v. Glalin Arms Corp., 28 A.D.2d 122 [2d Dept 1967], appeal dismissed 23 N.Y.2d 740 [1968]). 2024With respect the causes of action for contribution or common law indemnification, it has generally been held that default is not warranted until liability is established in the main action. (see IMP Plumbing& Heating Corp. v. 317 E. 34thSt., LLC, 89 A.D.3d 593 ,594 [1st Dept 2011), citing Multari v. Glalin Arms Corp., 28 A.D.2d 122 [2d Dept 1967), appeal dismissed 23 N.Y.2d 740 [1968)). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
New York Mun. Power Agency v. Town of Massena
green
1 sentence2021We previously upheld the denial of plaintiff's injunction request and defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7), finding that plaintiff stated a viable breach of contract claim given "that the terms of the underlying documents are in conflict" ( 188 AD3d at 1518 ). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Gurfein v. Ameritrade, Inc.
green
1 sentence2016Although the motion court erred to the extent it concluded that the underlying account agreements between petitioner and each respondent incorporate FINRA rules by reference and therefore form a basis for a viable breach of contract claim (see Gurfein, 312 Fed Appx at 413 ), the motion court correctly noted that petitioner’s claim is essentially an “overcharge claim.” The statements of claim and other submissions expressly considered by the arbitrator, state that petitioner had charged respondents excessive fees, without notice and contrary to a previously negotiated fee schedule. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Hudson v. Yonkers Fruit Co.
green
1 sentence2004Specifically, in light of the fiduciary nature of the obligations at issue, the defendant’s reliance on the common-law defense of accord and satisfaction is misplaced (see Hudson v Yonkers Fruit Co., 258 NY 168 [1932]). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Green Point Savings Bank v. Strum
neutral
1 sentence2004Taking the above allegations as true (see Gingold v Beekman, 183 AD2d 870 [1992]), and according the plaintiff “the benefit of every possible favorable inference” (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]), we agree with the Supreme Court that the complaint alleges a viable breach of contract claim. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Varo, Inc. v. Alvis PLC
green
1 sentence2001In light of the reinstatement of the breach of contract claim, plaintiffs’ fraud-based claims must be dismissed inasmuch as they merely restate their contract claims and are duplicative (Varo, Inc. v Alvis PLC, 261 AD2d 262, 265 , lv denied sub nom. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.