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.
72 New York opinions name it 6 courts 1922–2026 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
DeLeonibus v. Scognamillogreen2 sentences2013The plaintiffs were not required to “state a precise cause of action in haec verba” in their notices of claim (DeLeonibus v Scognamillo, 183 AD2d 697, 698 [1992]). 2008Contrary to the County’s and the Police Department’s contention, the plaintiffs’ notices of claim were sufficient to apprise the County and the Police Department of the nature of the plaintiffs’ claims (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [2]; Brown v City of New York, 95 NY2d 389, 394 [2000]; DeLeonibus v Scognamillo, 183 AD2d 697, 697-698 [1992]). | 3 | 3 |
In re Jared S.green2 sentences2014On the merits, defendant failed to satisfy its prima facie burden of establishing its entitlement to summary judgment, because it did not assert that it did not create the unsafe condition by installing an unreasonably dangerous piece of equipment (see O’Halloran v City of New York, 78 AD3d 536, 537 [1st Dept 2010]). 2014On the merits, defendant failed to satisfy its prima facie burden of establishing its entitlement to summary judgment, because it did not assert that it did not create the unsafe condition by installing an unreasonably dangerous piece of equipment (see O’Halloran v City of New York, 78 AD3d 536, 537 [1st Dept 2010]). | 2 | 2 |
Chieffet v. New York City Transit Authoritygreen2 sentences2014Auth. ( 10 AD3d 526, 527 [1st Dept 2004]), where the theories of liability introduced by the plaintiffs were wholly independent of the theories alleged in the notices of claim. 2014Auth. ( 10 AD3d 526, 527 [1st Dept 2004]), where the theories of liability introduced by the plaintiffs were wholly independent of the theories alleged in the notices of claim. | 2 | 2 |
Mazzoli v. Di Fabiogreen2 sentences2014Auth., 90 AD3d 552, 552 ; Blanco v County of Suffolk, 51 AD3d 700, 701 ; see also Jones v City of Buffalo, 267 AD2d 1101, 1101 ; see generally Trader v State of New York, 259 AD2d 951, 951 ). 2014Auth., 90 AD3d 552, 552 [2011]; Blanco v County of Suffolk, 51 AD3d 700, 701 [2008]; see also Jones v City of Buffalo, 267 AD2d 1101, 1101 [1999]; see generally Matter of Trader v State of New York, 259 AD2d 951, 951 [1999]). | 2 | 2 |
Hammer v. KMart Corp.green2 sentences2014Auth., 90 AD3d 552, 552 ; Blanco v County of Suffolk, 51 AD3d 700, 701 ; see also Jones v City of Buffalo, 267 AD2d 1101, 1101 ; see generally Trader v State of New York, 259 AD2d 951, 951 ). 2014Auth., 90 AD3d 552, 552 [2011]; Blanco v County of Suffolk, 51 AD3d 700, 701 [2008]; see also Jones v City of Buffalo, 267 AD2d 1101, 1101 [1999]; see generally Matter of Trader v State of New York, 259 AD2d 951, 951 [1999]). | 2 | 2 |
Sirju-Kar Corp. v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2013The petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to these notices of violation, and there is no basis in the record to conclude that any exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement would apply (see Matter of Sirju-Kar Corp. v City of New York, 64 AD3d 716, 717 [2009]; see generally Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52, 57 [1978]; NYCTL 2009-A Trust v Tsafatinos, 101 AD3d 1092, 1093 [2012]; Matter of Nazir v Charge & Ride, Inc., 95 AD3d 1215, 1216 [2012]; Matter of Laureiro v New York City Dept. of Consumer Affairs, 41 AD3d 717, 71 2013The petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to these notices of violation, and there is no basis in the record to conclude that any exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement would apply (see Matter of Sirju-Kar Corp. v City of New York, 64 AD3d 716, 717 [2009]; see generally Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52, 57 [1978]; NYCTL 2009-A Trust v Tsafatinos, 101 AD3d 1092, 1093 [2012]; Matter of Nazir v Charge & Ride, Inc., 95 AD3d 1215, 1216 [2012]; Matter of Laureiro v New York City Dept. of Consumer Affairs, 41 AD3d 717, 71 | 2 | 2 |
Muhammad Shahid Nazir v. Charge & Ride, Inc.green2 sentences2013The petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to these notices of violation, and there is no basis in the record to conclude that any exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement would apply (see Matter of Sirju-Kar Corp. v City of New York, 64 AD3d 716, 717 [2009]; see generally Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52, 57 [1978]; NYCTL 2009-A Trust v Tsafatinos, 101 AD3d 1092, 1093 [2012]; Matter of Nazir v Charge & Ride, Inc., 95 AD3d 1215, 1216 [2012]; Matter of Laureiro v New York City Dept. of Consumer Affairs, 41 AD3d 717, 71 2013The petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to these notices of violation, and there is no basis in the record to conclude that any exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement would apply (see Matter of Sirju-Kar Corp. v City of New York, 64 AD3d 716, 717 [2009]; see generally Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52, 57 [1978]; NYCTL 2009-A Trust v Tsafatinos, 101 AD3d 1092, 1093 [2012]; Matter of Nazir v Charge & Ride, Inc., 95 AD3d 1215, 1216 [2012]; Matter of Laureiro v New York City Dept. of Consumer Affairs, 41 AD3d 717, 71 | 2 | 2 |
NYCTL 2009-A Trust v. Tsafatinosgreen2 sentences2013The petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to these notices of violation, and there is no basis in the record to conclude that any exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement would apply (see Matter of Sirju-Kar Corp. v City of New York, 64 AD3d 716, 717 [2009]; see generally Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52, 57 [1978]; NYCTL 2009-A Trust v Tsafatinos, 101 AD3d 1092, 1093 [2012]; Matter of Nazir v Charge & Ride, Inc., 95 AD3d 1215, 1216 [2012]; Matter of Laureiro v New York City Dept. of Consumer Affairs, 41 AD3d 717, 71 2013The petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to these notices of violation, and there is no basis in the record to conclude that any exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement would apply (see Matter of Sirju-Kar Corp. v City of New York, 64 AD3d 716, 717 [2009]; see generally Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52, 57 [1978]; NYCTL 2009-A Trust v Tsafatinos, 101 AD3d 1092, 1093 [2012]; Matter of Nazir v Charge & Ride, Inc., 95 AD3d 1215, 1216 [2012]; Matter of Laureiro v New York City Dept. of Consumer Affairs, 41 AD3d 717, 71 | 2 | 2 |
Watergate II Apartments v. Buffalo Sewer Authoritygreen2 sentences2013The petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to these notices of violation, and there is no basis in the record to conclude that any exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement would apply (see Matter of Sirju-Kar Corp. v City of New York, 64 AD3d 716, 717 [2009]; see generally Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52, 57 [1978]; NYCTL 2009-A Trust v Tsafatinos, 101 AD3d 1092, 1093 [2012]; Matter of Nazir v Charge & Ride, Inc., 95 AD3d 1215, 1216 [2012]; Matter of Laureiro v New York City Dept. of Consumer Affairs, 41 AD3d 717, 71 2013The petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to these notices of violation, and there is no basis in the record to conclude that any exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement would apply (see Matter of Sirju-Kar Corp. v City of New York, 64 AD3d 716, 717 [2009]; see generally Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52, 57 [1978]; NYCTL 2009-A Trust v Tsafatinos, 101 AD3d 1092, 1093 [2012]; Matter of Nazir v Charge & Ride, Inc., 95 AD3d 1215, 1216 [2012]; Matter of Laureiro v New York City Dept. of Consumer Affairs, 41 AD3d 717, 71 | 2 | 2 |
Halperin v. City of New Rochellegreen2 sentences2013Accordingly, we review the ECB’s determination under the standard set forth in CPLR 7803 (3) (see Matter of Morrow v County of Nassau, 105 AD3d 961 [2013]) and “consider only whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law, was arbitrary and capricious, or was an abuse of discretion” (id. at 961; see Ward v City of Long Beach, 20 NY3d 1042, 1043 [2013]; Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle, 24 AD3d 768, 770 [2005]). 2013Accordingly, we review the ECB’s determination under the standard set forth in CPLR 7803 (3) (see Matter of Morrow v County of Nassau, 105 AD3d 961 [2013]) and “consider only whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law, was arbitrary and capricious, or was an abuse of discretion” (id. at 961; see Ward v City of Long Beach, 20 NY3d 1042, 1043 [2013]; Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle, 24 AD3d 768, 770 [2005]). | 2 | 2 |
Igartua v. Selskygreen2 sentences2013The petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to these notices of violation, and there is no basis in the record to conclude that any exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement would apply (see Matter of Sirju-Kar Corp. v City of New York, 64 AD3d 716, 717 [2009]; see generally Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52, 57 [1978]; NYCTL 2009-A Trust v Tsafatinos, 101 AD3d 1092, 1093 [2012]; Matter of Nazir v Charge & Ride, Inc., 95 AD3d 1215, 1216 [2012]; Matter of Laureiro v New York City Dept. of Consumer Affairs, 41 AD3d 717, 71 2013The petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to these notices of violation, and there is no basis in the record to conclude that any exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement would apply (see Matter of Sirju-Kar Corp. v City of New York, 64 AD3d 716, 717 [2009]; see generally Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52, 57 [1978]; NYCTL 2009-A Trust v Tsafatinos, 101 AD3d 1092, 1093 [2012]; Matter of Nazir v Charge & Ride, Inc., 95 AD3d 1215, 1216 [2012]; Matter of Laureiro v New York City Dept. of Consumer Affairs, 41 AD3d 717, 71 | 2 | 2 |
Ward v. City of Long Beachgreen2 sentences2013Accordingly, we review the ECB’s determination under the standard set forth in CPLR 7803 (3) (see Matter of Morrow v County of Nassau, 105 AD3d 961 [2013]) and “consider only whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law, was arbitrary and capricious, or was an abuse of discretion” (id. at 961; see Ward v City of Long Beach, 20 NY3d 1042, 1043 [2013]; Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle, 24 AD3d 768, 770 [2005]). 2013Accordingly, we review the ECB’s determination under the standard set forth in CPLR 7803 (3) (see Matter of Morrow v County of Nassau, 105 AD3d 961 [2013]) and “consider only whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law, was arbitrary and capricious, or was an abuse of discretion” (id. at 961; see Ward v City of Long Beach, 20 NY3d 1042, 1043 [2013]; Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle, 24 AD3d 768, 770 [2005]). | 2 | 2 |
O'Brien v. City of Syracusegreen2 sentences2007The defendant City of New York satisfied its burden of establishing that the notices of claim of the plaintiffs in action Nos. 1 and 3 (hereinafter the plaintiffs) were insufficient to comply with the requirements of General Municipal Law § 50-e (2), in that they failed to give notice of the plaintiffs’ contentions that the City negligently shut off the public water connection to the sprinkler system for their apartment building during the installation of a new water main in 1993, thus permitting a fire to spread unchecked throughout their building (see O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 2007Under these circumstances, the first and sixth causes of action were properly dismissed insofar as asserted against the Town and the defendant Lynch on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to comply with a condition precedent to the commencement of the action, and the complaint was properly dismissed in its entirety insofar as asserted against the defendants Morgenier, Lohman, Sokol, and Frank on the same ground (see O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 358 [1981]; Urena v City of New York, 221 AD2d 429 [1995]; Bryant v City of New York, 188 AD2d 445, 446 [1992]). | 2 | 2 |
Rodriguez v. New York City Transit Authoritygreen2 sentences2014Auth., 90 AD3d 552, 552 ; Blanco v County of Suffolk, 51 AD3d 700, 701 ; see also Jones v City of Buffalo, 267 AD2d 1101, 1101 ; see generally Trader v State of New York, 259 AD2d 951, 951 ). 2014Auth., 90 AD3d 552, 552 [2011]; Blanco v County of Suffolk, 51 AD3d 700, 701 [2008]; see also Jones v City of Buffalo, 267 AD2d 1101, 1101 [1999]; see generally Matter of Trader v State of New York, 259 AD2d 951, 951 [1999]). | 1 | 2 |
Blanco v. County of Suffolkgreen2 sentences2014Auth., 90 AD3d 552, 552 ; Blanco v County of Suffolk, 51 AD3d 700, 701 ; see also Jones v City of Buffalo, 267 AD2d 1101, 1101 ; see generally Trader v State of New York, 259 AD2d 951, 951 ). 2014Auth., 90 AD3d 552, 552 [2011]; Blanco v County of Suffolk, 51 AD3d 700, 701 [2008]; see also Jones v City of Buffalo, 267 AD2d 1101, 1101 [1999]; see generally Matter of Trader v State of New York, 259 AD2d 951, 951 [1999]). | 1 | 2 |
Bryant v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2007Under these circumstances, the first and sixth causes of action were properly dismissed insofar as asserted against the Town and the defendant Lynch on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to comply with a condition precedent to the commencement of the action, and the complaint was properly dismissed in its entirety insofar as asserted against the defendants Morgenier, Lohman, Sokol, and Frank on the same ground (see O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 358 [1981]; Urena v City of New York, 221 AD2d 429 [1995]; Bryant v City of New York, 188 AD2d 445, 446 [1992]). 1995The notices of claim contain absolutely no factual "allegations concerning negligent hiring” (Bryant v City of New York, 188 AD2d 445, 446 ). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Hendersongreen1 sentence2025“Petitioner’s assertion that [petitioner] was unaware of the requirement that [petitioner] file a notice of claim within 90 days of [their] accident is not a reasonable excuse for failing to file a timely notice” (Matter of Montero v City of New York, 176 AD3d 614 , 615 [1st Dept 2019]; Gaudio v City of New York, 235 AD2d 228, 228 [1st Dept 1997]). | 1 | 1 |
| Zaid v. City of New Yorkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Allano v. Olivagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Williams v. Nassau County Medical Centergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bronx Realty Advisory Board, Inc. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewalgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gordon v. Browngreen | 1 | 1 |
| Smith v. New York State Department of Healthgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gallagher v. Gallaghergreen | 1 | 1 |
| California Suites, Inc. v. Russo Demolition Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Lingfei Sun v. City of New Yorkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Wai Lun Fung v. Dausgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Shahid v. City of New Yorkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Della Villa v. Constantinogreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Rosagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Matter of AFP Holding, Inc. v. City of New Yorkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Dearborn Associates v. Environmental Control Boardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rudd v. Andrewsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mangona v. Village of Greenwichgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Pagangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Kronos, Inc. v. AVX Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Snyder v. Town Insulation, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Gagnon v. City of Saratoga Springsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Leon v. Martinezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Brown v. City of New Yorkgreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kurtin v. City of New York
green
2 sentences2013It was bare surmise and conjecture to conclude, from photographs depicting the outside of two doors in the basement, and the presence of five mailboxes on the exterior of the premises, that petitioner had illegally converted its premises (cf. Matter of Kurtin v City of New York, 78 AD3d 473 [1st Dept 2010]), especially since the Department of Building’s inspector who issued the notices of violation did not testify at the hearing. 2013It was bare surmise and conjecture to conclude, from photographs depicting the outside of two doors in the basement, and the presence of five mailboxes on the exterior of the premises, that petitioner had illegally converted its premises (cf. Matter of Kurtin v City of New York, 78 AD3d 473 [1st Dept 2010]), especially since the Department of Building’s inspector who issued the notices of violation did not testify at the hearing. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Morrow v. County of Nassau
green
2 sentences2013Accordingly, we review the ECB’s determination under the standard set forth in CPLR 7803 (3) (see Matter of Morrow v County of Nassau, 105 AD3d 961 [2013]) and “consider only whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law, was arbitrary and capricious, or was an abuse of discretion” (id. at 961; see Ward v City of Long Beach, 20 NY3d 1042, 1043 [2013]; Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle, 24 AD3d 768, 770 [2005]). 2013Accordingly, we review the ECB’s determination under the standard set forth in CPLR 7803 (3) (see Matter of Morrow v County of Nassau, 105 AD3d 961 [2013]) and “consider only whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law, was arbitrary and capricious, or was an abuse of discretion” (id. at 961; see Ward v City of Long Beach, 20 NY3d 1042, 1043 [2013]; Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle, 24 AD3d 768, 770 [2005]). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Bender v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.
green
2 sentences1991Corp. ( 38 NY2d 662 ), that although the city and NYCHHC were aware of untimely service of the notices of claim they nevertheless proceeded with hearings pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h. 1987Corp., 38 NY2d 662 ; State ex rel. | 2 | 1987–1991 |
Seekings v. Jamestown Public School System
green
1 sentence2026School Sys. , 224 AD2d 942, 943 ). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Boswell v. Leemilt's Petroleum, Inc.
green
1 sentence2026Here, contrary to Brookhaven's contention, the notices of claim were sufficiently particular and were not required to specify the contaminant(s) emanating from the Landfill that the plaintiffs believed caused their respective injuries ( see Boswell v Leemilt's Petroleum , 252 AD2d 889, 890-891 ; Matter of Seekings v Jamestown Pub. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Gorman v. Town of Huntington
green
1 sentence2024Further, the Town established that it did not have prior written notice of any defect ( see Code of Town of Huntington § 174-3[A]; Gorman v Town of Huntington , 12 NY3d 275 ; Smith v City of New York , 210 AD3d 53, 61 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Matter of Lang v. County of Nassau
green
1 sentence2024Furthermore, the petitioner did not adduce sufficient evidence to support his claim that he was unable to timely serve the notices of claim because he was seeking medical treatment and recovering from medical procedures, as he provided evidence only that he was unable to work for intermittent periods during the eight-month interval between the date of the accident and the service of the notices of claim ( see Matter of Lang v County of Nassau , 210 AD3d 773, 775 ; Matter of Bermudez v City of New York , 167 AD3d 733 , 734). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Kelly v. City of New York
green
1 sentence2024The plaintiff also failed to proffer any explanation for the additional delay of approximately seven months between the service of the late notices of claim and the filing of his motion for leave to deem the notices of claim timely served nunc pro tunc ( see Kelly v City of New York , 153 AD3d 1388, 1389 ; Kuterman v City of New York , 121 AD3d 646, 647 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Bobko v. City of New York green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Smith v. City of New York
green
1 sentence2024Further, the Town established that it did not have prior written notice of any defect ( see Code of Town of Huntington § 174-3[A]; Gorman v Town of Huntington , 12 NY3d 275 ; Smith v City of New York , 210 AD3d 53, 61 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Burgos v. City of New York
green
2 sentences2024The additional information offered by the plaintiffs in their General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing testimony failed to cure the deficiencies of the notices of claim regarding the location and cause of the accidents, and continued to hinder the Town's ability to conduct a prompt and meaningful investigation of the claims ( see A.A. v City of New York , 219 AD3d at 1475; Burgos v City of New York , 202 AD3d at 746 ; cf. Delisser v New York City Tr. 2024The additional information offered by the plaintiffs in their General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing testimony failed to cure the deficiencies of the notices of claim regarding the location and cause of the accidents, and continued to hinder the Town's ability to conduct a prompt and meaningful investigation of the claims ( see A.A. v City of New York , 219 AD3d at 1475; Burgos v City of New York , 202 AD3d at 746 ; cf. Delisser v New York City Tr. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Delisser v. New York City Tr. Auth.
green
1 sentence2024Auth. , 211 AD3d 907 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Kuterman v. City of New York
green
1 sentence2024The plaintiff also failed to proffer any explanation for the additional delay of approximately seven months between the service of the late notices of claim and the filing of his motion for leave to deem the notices of claim timely served nunc pro tunc ( see Kelly v City of New York , 153 AD3d 1388, 1389 ; Kuterman v City of New York , 121 AD3d 646, 647 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Matter of Bhargava v. City of New York
green
1 sentence2024The petitioner's ignorance of the law does not constitute a reasonable excuse ( see Matter of Nunez v Village of Rockville Ctr. , 176 AD3d at 1214; Matter of Bhargava v City of New York , 130 AD3d 819, 820 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Matter of Carone v. New York City Envtl. Control Bd. green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Felice v. Eastport/South Manor Central School District green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Eboni B. v. New York City Housing Authority green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Gonzalez ex rel. Snow v. Povoski green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Blanco v. City of New York green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Matter of Lapierre v. City of New York neutral | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| March v. Town of Wappinger green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Jordan v. City of New York green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| GOODWIN, ROBETTE v. PRETORIUS, M.D., RICHARD green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| City of New York v. Miller green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Associates First Capital Corp. v. Wiggins green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Schroeder v. City of New York green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Intersimone v. Appleton green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Long v. Sowande green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Schultes v. Kane green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| People ex rel. Rubio v. Johnson green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Island ADC, Inc. v. Baldassano Architectural Group green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Pierre v. City of New York green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| McCrae v. City of New York green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Urena v. City of New York green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Ingle v. New York City Transit Authority green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Rushford v. Facteau green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Pinkus v. V.F. Builders, Inc. green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| In Re the Arbitration Between Brandon & Nationwide Mutual Insurance green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.
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.