plaintiffs cannot claim (New York) · Go Syfert
← New York issues

plaintiffs cannot claim in New York

10 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1921–2015 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.

Followed or applied (5)

CaseFollowedCited
Ramos v. Madison Square Garden Corp.green
nyappdiv · 1999 · cited in 2 New York opinions naming this issue, 2001–2015
2 sentences

2015Moreover, since the contract, which was executed after the inspection report was issued and after the plaintiffs conducted their own site inspection, contained a provision that the plaintiffs were fully aware of the condition of the premises based upon their own inspection and investigation, and not based upon any information or representations, written or oral, made by the sellers, the plaintiffs cannot claim fraud (see Platzman v Morris, 283 AD2d at 562-563 ; see also Busch v Mastropierro, 258 AD2d 492 [1999]).

2001Since the contract contained a provision that the plaintiffs were fully aware of the condition of the premises based upon their own inspection and investigation, and not based upon any informa tion or representations, written or oral, made by the sellers, the plaintiffs cannot claim fraud (see, Busch v Mastropierro, 258 AD2d 492 ).

12
Witter v. Taggartgreen
ny · 1991 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
1 sentence

2007Since the declaration merely restricted the ability to create future easements, the plaintiffs cannot claim that this docu ment created any rights (see Witter v Taggart, supra at 237-238; Breakers Motel v Sunbeach Montauk Two, 224 AD2d 473, 474 [1996]).

11
Breakers Motel, Inc. v. Sunbeach Montauk Two, Inc.green
nyappdiv · 1996 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
1 sentence

2007Since the declaration merely restricted the ability to create future easements, the plaintiffs cannot claim that this docu ment created any rights (see Witter v Taggart, supra at 237-238; Breakers Motel v Sunbeach Montauk Two, 224 AD2d 473, 474 [1996]).

11
People Ex Rel. Alpha Portland Cement Co. v. Knappgreen
· 1920 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003
1 sentence

2003Alpha Portland Cement Co. v Knapp ( 230 NY 48, 60 [1920], cert denied 256 US 702 [1921]) is misplaced and countervailing, as that case construes a franchise tax as being the equivalent of an income tax, since it is imposed on “net income,” and not upon “gross receipts.” Hence, consistent with Alpha Portland Cement Co. (supra), the assessment in this case is not a franchise tax and the plaintiffs cannot claim that exemption or argue that it is being repealed by the assessment.

11
Morales v. Foodways, Inc.green
nyappdiv · 1992 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994
1 sentence

1994Moreover, in opposing the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, it was incumbent upon the plaintiffs "to submit evidentiary facts or materials, by affidavit or otherwise * * * demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of ultimate fact” (Indig v Finkelstein, 23 NY2d 728, 729 ; see also, Morales v Foodways, Inc., 186 AD2d 407, 409 ).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (12)

CaseCitedYears
Platzman v. Morris green
nyappdiv · 2001
1 sentence

2015Moreover, since the contract, which was executed after the inspection report was issued and after the plaintiffs conducted their own site inspection, contained a provision that the plaintiffs were fully aware of the condition of the premises based upon their own inspection and investigation, and not based upon any information or representations, written or oral, made by the sellers, the plaintiffs cannot claim fraud (see Platzman v Morris, 283 AD2d at 562-563 ; see also Busch v Mastropierro, 258 AD2d 492 [1999]).

12015–2015
Solow v. Liebman neutral
nyappdiv · 1994
1 sentence

2001Accordingly, the plaintiffs cannot claim that they lacked notice that the issue of summary judgment was before the court (see, TST/Impreso, Inc. v Cosmos Forms, 202 AD2d 493 ).

12001–2001
Sharp v. Kosmalski green
ny · 1976
1 sentence

2001The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that they will be able to establish the elements of a constructive trust (see, Sharp v Kosmalski, 40 NY2d 119, 121 ).

12001–2001
Lederman v. McLean Trucking Co. green
nyappdiv · 1973
1 sentence

1996The defendant’s answer alleged the substance of its claim (see, CPLR 3026; Santaniello v DeFrancisco, 74 Misc 2d 229, 233 , affd 44 AD2d 831 ) and the plaintiffs cannot claim prejudice or surprise (see, Rich v Lefkovits, 56 NY2d 276 ; Lederman v McLean Trucking Co., 41 AD2d 5 ).

11996–1996
Scherman v. Board of Education green
nyappdiv · 1974
1 sentence

1996The defendant’s answer alleged the substance of its claim (see, CPLR 3026; Santaniello v DeFrancisco, 74 Misc 2d 229, 233 , affd 44 AD2d 831 ) and the plaintiffs cannot claim prejudice or surprise (see, Rich v Lefkovits, 56 NY2d 276 ; Lederman v McLean Trucking Co., 41 AD2d 5 ).

11996–1996
Santaniello v. De Francisco green
nysupct · 1973
1 sentence

1996The defendant’s answer alleged the substance of its claim (see, CPLR 3026; Santaniello v DeFrancisco, 74 Misc 2d 229, 233 , affd 44 AD2d 831 ) and the plaintiffs cannot claim prejudice or surprise (see, Rich v Lefkovits, 56 NY2d 276 ; Lederman v McLean Trucking Co., 41 AD2d 5 ).

11996–1996
Rich v. Lefkovits green
ny · 1982
1 sentence

1996The defendant’s answer alleged the substance of its claim (see, CPLR 3026; Santaniello v DeFrancisco, 74 Misc 2d 229, 233 , affd 44 AD2d 831 ) and the plaintiffs cannot claim prejudice or surprise (see, Rich v Lefkovits, 56 NY2d 276 ; Lederman v McLean Trucking Co., 41 AD2d 5 ).

11996–1996
Indig v. Finkelstein green
ny · 1968
1 sentence

1994Moreover, in opposing the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, it was incumbent upon the plaintiffs "to submit evidentiary facts or materials, by affidavit or otherwise * * * demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of ultimate fact” (Indig v Finkelstein, 23 NY2d 728, 729 ; see also, Morales v Foodways, Inc., 186 AD2d 407, 409 ).

11994–1994
Rosas v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority neutral
nyappdiv · 1985
1 sentence

1986Operating Auth., 109 AD2d 647 ; Luka v New York City Tr.

11986–1986
Goldberger v. Eastern Construction Co. neutral
nyappdiv · 1937
1 sentence

1961That section, which establishes the procedure to be followed in the trial of .charges preferred against employees of the Board of Education, provides in part that “ In case the principal or other officer or teacher is acquitted, he shall be restored to his position with full pay for the period of suspension.” (Emphasis supplied.) Since there was never any trial of the charges preferred against the plaintiffs, in that such charges were withdrawn before trial, the plaintiffs cannot claim they were acquitted following a trial, so as to come within the purview of the foregoing provision of the Edu

11961–1961
Casey v. Ryan neutral
nysupct · 1936
1 sentence

1961That section, which establishes the procedure to be followed in the trial of .charges preferred against employees of the Board of Education, provides in part that “ In case the principal or other officer or teacher is acquitted, he shall be restored to his position with full pay for the period of suspension.” (Emphasis supplied.) Since there was never any trial of the charges preferred against the plaintiffs, in that such charges were withdrawn before trial, the plaintiffs cannot claim they were acquitted following a trial, so as to come within the purview of the foregoing provision of the Edu

11961–1961
Farmers and Mechanics' Nat. Bank v. . Logan green
· 1878
1 sentence

1921Bank v. Logan, 74 N. Y. 568, 578 .) The plaintiffs cannot claim that their property “ shall be deemed to be only for the purpose of securing performance by the buyer of his obligations under the contract ” (Pers.

11921–1921

Where else courts name it

NY 10 (1921–2015) CT 5 (1988–2009) MA 4 (1982–2008) FL 4 (1989–2025) IL 4 (1980–2015)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check