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.
10 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1960–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Boye v. Rubin & Bailin, LLPgreen2 sentences2020Thus, to make a prima facie showing that they were entitled to summary judgment on the Judiciary Law claim, defendants were not required to submit an affidavit from a legal expert, but rather, an affidavit from someone with actual knowledge of the allegations at issue suffices ( see Boye v Rubin & Ballin, LLP , 152 AD3d 1, 9 [1st Dept 2017]). 2020Thus, to make a prima facie showing that they were entitled to summary judgment on the Judiciary Law claim, defendants were not required to submit an affidavit from a legal expert, but rather, an affidavit from someone with actual knowledge of the allegations at issue suffices ( see Boye v Rubin & Ballin, LLP , 152 AD3d 1, 9 [1st Dept 2017]). | 1 | 1 |
Pendleton v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2010Rather, he contends that the doctrine is applicable because “the only substantive difference between the complaint and the proposed amended complaint are the allegations regarding Defendant’s state of mind, i.e., were his acts and omissions merely negligent or did he intend to deceive the court, the other litigants and his own client?” (Plaintiffs reply mem of law in further support of his motion to amend the complaint at 4.) “The sine qua non of the relation-back doctrine is notice.” (Pendleton v City of New York, 44 AD3d 733, 736 [2d Dept 2007].) “Where the allegations of the original compla 2010Rather, he contends that the doctrine is applicable because “the only substantive difference between the complaint and the proposed amended complaint are the allegations regarding Defendant’s state of mind, i.e., were his acts and omissions merely negligent or did he intend to deceive the court, the other litigants and his own client?” (Plaintiffs reply mem of law in further support of his motion to amend the complaint at 4.) “The sine qua non of the relation-back doctrine is notice.” (Pendleton v City of New York, 44 AD3d 733, 736 [2d Dept 2007].) “Where the allegations of the original compla | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sun Ann Supply Inc. v. Trenz, Inc.
green
2 sentences1999We also leave undisturbed the motion court’s grant of leave for Weg & Myers to file an amended answer to assert defenses of laches and failure to mitigate (Sun Ann Supply v Trenz, Inc., 178 AD2d 328 ) as to the remaining claims and its denial of summary judgment to the Bank thereon. 1999We also leave undisturbed the motion court’s grant of leave for Weg & Myers to file an amended answer to assert defenses of laches and failure to mitigate (Sun Ann Supply v Trenz, Inc., 178 AD2d 328 ) as to the remaining claims and its denial of summary judgment to the Bank thereon. | 2 | 1999–1999 |
People v. Santiago
neutral
2 sentences1999Moreover, since Weg & Myers was not shown to have practiced deceit or collusion with Pali during a judicial proceeding to which Weg & Myers was a party (Bankers Trust Co. v Cerrato, Sweeney, Cohn, Stahl & Vaccaro, supra), the Judiciary Law claim set forth in the sixth cause of action was properly dismissed. 1999Moreover, since Weg & Myers was not shown to have practiced deceit or collusion with Pali during a judicial proceeding to which Weg & Myers was a party (Bankers Trust Co. v Cerrato, Sweeney, Cohn, Stahl & Vaccaro, supra), the Judiciary Law claim set forth in the sixth cause of action was properly dismissed. | 2 | 1999–1999 |
1050 Tenants Corp. v. Lapidus
green
2 sentences2016Indeed, the Judiciary Law claim did not even exist when plaintiff commenced the Apollo action (see 1050 Tenants, 118 AD3d at 560-561 ). 2016Indeed, the Judiciary Law claim did not even exist when plaintiff commenced the Apollo action (see 1050 Tenants, 118 AD3d at 560-561 ). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Rosa v. Mohan Kulkarni Unibell Anesthesia, P.C.
green
1 sentence1982Special Term decided that motion in conjunction with three others, one of which, Rosa v Kulkarni Unibell Anesthesia ( 113 Misc 2d 39 ), was then appealed to this court. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Mulroy v. Carey
green
1 sentence1979We have already suggested in Mulroy v Carey ( 58 AD2d 207 , affd 43 NY2d 819 ), that any party who feels aggrieved (not including the District Attorney) has sufficient recourse under subdivision 2 of section 149 of the Judiciary Law to challenge the jurisdiction of the Extraordinary Special and Trial Term. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Mulroy v. Carey
green
1 sentence1979We have already suggested in Mulroy v Carey ( 58 AD2d 207 , affd 43 NY2d 819 ), that any party who feels aggrieved (not including the District Attorney) has sufficient recourse under subdivision 2 of section 149 of the Judiciary Law to challenge the jurisdiction of the Extraordinary Special and Trial Term. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
People v. Sam
green
1 sentence1976Prior to the Dondi decision in the Court of Appeals, this court granted a Judiciary Law motion to dismiss an indictment obtained by the Special Prosecutor, holding that he did not have jurisdiction over transgressions unrelated to the enforcement of law or the administration of criminal justice (People v Sam, 49 AD2d 732 ). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
People v. . Meakim
green
1 sentence1973That statute states: ‘ ‘ Adjudication for criminal contempt under subdivision A of section seven hundred fifty of the judiciary law shall not bar a prosecution for the crime of criminal contempt under section 215.50 based upon the same conduct but, upon conviction thereunder, the court, in sentencing the defendant shall take the previous punishment into consideration.” This statute is supported by an 1892 decision of the Court of Appeals in People v. Meakin ( 133 N. Y. 214 ). | 1 | 1973–1973 |
McCoy v. Gas Engine & Power Co.
green
1 sentence1960Their remedy, if any, would be by plenary action based on a quantum meruit theory of recovery (see McGoy v. Gas Engine & Power Co., 152 App. Div. 642 , affd. 208 N. Y. 63 ; Harvey v. Dodge Corp., 169 Misc. 781, 783 ; 3 N. Y. | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Matter of Weitling
green
1 sentence1960The attorneys would have no standing either under section 475 of the Judiciary Law or under rule 4 (cf. Dudar v. Milef Realty Corp., 227 App. Div. 279 ; Matter of Weitling, 266 N. Y. 184, 187 ). | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Harvey v. F. W. Dodge Corp.
neutral
1 sentence1960Their remedy, if any, would be by plenary action based on a quantum meruit theory of recovery (see McGoy v. Gas Engine & Power Co., 152 App. Div. 642 , affd. 208 N. Y. 63 ; Harvey v. Dodge Corp., 169 Misc. 781, 783 ; 3 N. Y. | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Dudar v. Milef Realty Corp.
green
1 sentence1960The attorneys would have no standing either under section 475 of the Judiciary Law or under rule 4 (cf. Dudar v. Milef Realty Corp., 227 App. Div. 279 ; Matter of Weitling, 266 N. Y. 184, 187 ). | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.