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.
71 New York opinions name it 5 courts 1972–2026 8 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 |
|---|---|---|
Matter of Jackson v. Annuccigreen2 sentences2018Turning to petitioner's procedural contentions, we find no merit to petitioner's challenge to the timeliness of the hearing inasmuch as valid extensions were obtained, and the hearing was completed within the time period set forth therein ( see Matter of Clark v Smith , 155 AD3d 1232, 1234 [2017]; Matter of Jackson v Annucci , 144 AD3d 1285, 1286 [2016], lv denied 29 NY3d 907 [2017]). 2017To the extent that petitioner’s challenge to the timeliness of the hearing is preserved for our review, we find it to be lacking in merit, as the hearing was completed within the time period authorized by and set forth in the valid extensions that were obtained (see Matter of Wigfall v Department of Corr. & Community Supervision, 153 AD3d 1464, 1465 [2017]; Matter of Jackson v Annucci, 144 AD3d 1285, 1286 [2016], lv denied 29 NY3d 907 [2017]). | 3 | 3 |
Matter of Clark v. Smithgreen2 sentences2019We reject petitioner's challenge to the timeliness of the hearing, inasmuch as the record reflects that valid extensions were obtained and the hearing was completed within the time period set forth therein ( see Matter of Caldwell v Venettozzi , 166 AD3d 1184 , 1185 [2018]; Matter of Clark v Smith , 155 AD3d 1232, 1233 [2017]). 2018Turning to petitioner's procedural contentions, we find no merit to petitioner's challenge to the timeliness of the hearing inasmuch as valid extensions were obtained, and the hearing was completed within the time period set forth therein ( see Matter of Clark v Smith , 155 AD3d 1232, 1234 [2017]; Matter of Jackson v Annucci , 144 AD3d 1285, 1286 [2016], lv denied 29 NY3d 907 [2017]). | 2 | 2 |
Hardy v. Smithgreen2 sentences2012Finally, petitioner’s argument regarding the timeliness of the hearing is not preserved for our review due to his failure to raise it during the hearing (see Matter of Allison v Prack, 95 AD3d 1569, 1570 [2012]; Matter of Coleman v Fischer, 87 AD3d at 779). 2012Finally, petitioner’s argument regarding the timeliness of the hearing is not preserved for our review due to his failure to raise it during the hearing (see Matter of Allison v Prack, 95 AD3d 1569, 1570 [2012]; Matter of Coleman v Fischer, 87 AD3d at 779). | 2 | 2 |
Allison v. Prackgreen2 sentences2012Finally, petitioner’s argument regarding the timeliness of the hearing is not preserved for our review due to his failure to raise it during the hearing (see Matter of Allison v Prack, 95 AD3d 1569, 1570 [2012]; Matter of Coleman v Fischer, 87 AD3d at 779). 2012Finally, petitioner’s argument regarding the timeliness of the hearing is not preserved for our review due to his failure to raise it during the hearing (see Matter of Allison v Prack, 95 AD3d 1569, 1570 [2012]; Matter of Coleman v Fischer, 87 AD3d at 779). | 2 | 2 |
Surace v. Lostrappogreen2 sentences1999Some courts have held that good cause “refers not to the alleged strength of the belated motion but to the reason (i.e., the ‘cause’) for filing the motion belatedly.” (John v Bastien, 178 Misc 2d 664, 666 [Civ Ct, Kings County 1998]; see also, Surace v Lostrappo, 176 Misc 2d 408, 410 [Sup Ct, Nassau County] [“Good cause is a written expression or explanation by the party or his legal representative evincing a viable, credible reason for delay, which, when viewed objectively, warrants a departure or exception to the timeliness requirement”].) However, the Appellate Division has stated that in 1998Auth., NYLJ, July 21, 1998, at 24, col 3 [Sup Ct, Kings County] [“defendant has demonstrated ‘good cause’ for its delay” in filing the motion for summary judgment motion (emphasis added)]; Surace v Lostrappo, 176 Misc 2d 408, 410 [Sup Ct, Nassau County] [“Good cause is a written expression or explanation by the party or his legal representative evincing a viable, credible reason for delay, which, when viewed objectively, warrants a departure or exception to the timeliness requirement” (emphasis added)].) Although this court’s discretion to find “good cause” may be extremely broad, it is not un | 2 | 2 |
First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplangreen2 sentences2007The broad and unambiguous language of the Form U-4 arbitration clause, by incorporating NASD rules, sufficiently evinces an intent to provide that the arbitrator shall decide arbitrability, to rebut the presumption in favor of judicial determination of arbitrability enunciated in First Options of Chicago, Inc. v Kaplan ( 514 US 938, 944 [1995]; see also Howsam v Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 US 79, 83 [2002]; Bell v Cendant Corp., 293 F3d 563, 566 [2d Cir 2002]). 2002(See, First Options of Chicago v Kaplan, supra, 514 US at 943 ; Bull HN Information Sys., Inc. v Hutson, 229 F3d 321, 330-332 [1st Cir 2000].) Review of Arbitration Award A court may vacate an arbitration award on statutory grounds — as relevant here, where the arbitrators have “ex ceeded their powers” or committed misconduct — or, where the arbitrators have acted in “manifest disregard” of the law. | 1 | 2 |
Matter of Wiggins v. Venettozzigreen1 sentence2026Petitioner's failure to challenge the timeliness of the hearing therefore renders his contention unpreserved ( see Matter of Pleasant v Shope , 233 AD3d 1156 , 1158 [3d Dept 2024]; Matter of Wiggins v Venettozzi , 203 AD3d 1362, 1363 [3d Dept 2022]; Matter of Lewis v Fischer , 101 AD3d 1317, 1317-1318 [3d Dept 2012]). | 1 | 1 |
Lewis v. Fischergreen1 sentence2026Petitioner's failure to challenge the timeliness of the hearing therefore renders his contention unpreserved ( see Matter of Pleasant v Shope , 233 AD3d 1156 , 1158 [3d Dept 2024]; Matter of Wiggins v Venettozzi , 203 AD3d 1362, 1363 [3d Dept 2022]; Matter of Lewis v Fischer , 101 AD3d 1317, 1317-1318 [3d Dept 2012]). | 1 | 1 |
Claim of Palevsky v. New York City Board of Educationgreen1 sentence2026As the Board noted, the timeliness of that claim would not be impacted if claimant ultimately demonstrated that the alleged conditions for which he sought treatment in 2023 arose out of his initial injuries, as "the two-year time limit set forth in Workers' Compensation Law § 28 does not bar amendment of the timely claim to include" consequential injuries ( Matter of Palevsky v New York City Bd. of Educ. , 246 AD2d 836, 837 [3d Dept 1998], lv dismissed 92 NY2d 876 [1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 818 [1999]; see Matter of Traver v Rickkard Constr. | 1 | 1 |
Claim v. Rickkard Construction Co.green1 sentence2026Co. , 286 AD2d 808, 809 [3d Dept 2001]). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Rice v. New York State Gaming Commissiongreen2 sentences2025Although the substantial evidence standard is "a minimal one" ( Matter of Rice v New York State Gaming Commn. , 217 AD3d 1098, 1101-1102 [3d Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]), it "nevertheless requires more than a mere scintilla and must reflect adequate relevant proof that a reasonable person would accept to support a conclusion" ( Matter of Site Acquisitions v Town of New Scotland , 2 AD3d 1135, 1137 [3d Dept 2003]). 2025Although the substantial evidence standard is "a minimal one" ( Matter of Rice v New York State Gaming Commn. , 217 AD3d 1098, 1101-1102 [3d Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]), it "nevertheless requires more than a mere scintilla and must reflect adequate relevant proof that a reasonable person would accept to support a conclusion" ( Matter of Site Acquisitions v Town of New Scotland , 2 AD3d 1135, 1137 [3d Dept 2003]). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Valdez-Cruz v. Colladogreen1 sentence2025Any such issues are therefore deemed abandoned ( see Matter of Jimeno [Commissioner of Labor] , 231 AD3d 1467 , 1467-1468 [3d Dept 2024]; Matter of Dinger [Bend Entertainment, LLC-Commissioner of Labor] , 193 AD3d 1132, 1133 [3d Dept 2021]). [FN1] Claimant's challenges to the Department's underlying finding of overpayment and its denial of claimant's request to waive same are not properly before us ( see Matter of Bernardone [Commissioner of Labor] , 224 AD3d 1049 , 1051 [3d Dept 2024]; Matter of Moskovits [Commissioner of Labor] , 219 AD3d 1652, 1654 [3d Dept 2023]). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Dinger (Bend Entertainment, LLC--Commissioner of Labor)green1 sentence2025Any such issues are therefore deemed abandoned ( see Matter of Jimeno [Commissioner of Labor] , 231 AD3d 1467 , 1467-1468 [3d Dept 2024]; Matter of Dinger [Bend Entertainment, LLC-Commissioner of Labor] , 193 AD3d 1132, 1133 [3d Dept 2021]). [FN1] Claimant's challenges to the Department's underlying finding of overpayment and its denial of claimant's request to waive same are not properly before us ( see Matter of Bernardone [Commissioner of Labor] , 224 AD3d 1049 , 1051 [3d Dept 2024]; Matter of Moskovits [Commissioner of Labor] , 219 AD3d 1652, 1654 [3d Dept 2023]). | 1 | 1 |
Site Acquisitions, Inc. v. Town of New Scotlandgreen2 sentences2025Although the substantial evidence standard is "a minimal one" ( Matter of Rice v New York State Gaming Commn. , 217 AD3d 1098, 1101-1102 [3d Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]), it "nevertheless requires more than a mere scintilla and must reflect adequate relevant proof that a reasonable person would accept to support a conclusion" ( Matter of Site Acquisitions v Town of New Scotland , 2 AD3d 1135, 1137 [3d Dept 2003]). 2025Although the substantial evidence standard is "a minimal one" ( Matter of Rice v New York State Gaming Commn. , 217 AD3d 1098, 1101-1102 [3d Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]), it "nevertheless requires more than a mere scintilla and must reflect adequate relevant proof that a reasonable person would accept to support a conclusion" ( Matter of Site Acquisitions v Town of New Scotland , 2 AD3d 1135, 1137 [3d Dept 2003]). | 1 | 1 |
Roseview Farms, Inc. v. Pfistergreen1 sentence2024Nevertheless, "[i]t is the rule that a defendant may be estopped to plead [a timeliness defense] where [the] plaintiff was induced by fraud, misrepresentations or deception to refrain from filing a timely action" ( Simcuski v Saeli , 44 NY2d 442 , 448-449 [1978]; see Roseview Farms v Pfister , 198 AD2d 339 , 341 [2d Dept 1993], lv dismissed 83 NY2d 847 [1994], lvs denied 87 NY2d 804 [1995], 87 NY2d 805 [1995]). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Bonds v. Annuccigreen1 sentence2022Finally, petitioner's challenge to the timeliness of the hearing, for which extensions were granted, was not raised at the hearing and is, therefore, unpreserved for our review ( see Matter of Bonds v Annucci , 193 AD3d 1204, 1206 [2021]). | 1 | 1 |
| Matter of Rodriguez v. Rodriguezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lehman Bros. v. Hughes Hubbard & Reed, L. L. P.green | 1 | 1 |
| Davis v. Prackgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rush v. Beziogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Linnen v. Prackgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Matter of Wigfall v. Department of Corr. & Community Supervisiongreen | 1 | 1 |
De La Cruz v. Beziogreen1 sentence2017To the extent that petitioner challenges the basis for the extensions obtained and the timeliness of the hearing, we note that the regulatory time limits are directory, rather than mandatory, and petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he suffered any prejudice as a result of any delay (see Matter of De La Cruz v Bezio, 107 AD3d 1275, 1276 [2013]; Matter of Blocker v Fischer, 100 AD3d 1118 , 1119 [2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 857 [2013]). | 1 | 1 |
| Bookman v. Fischergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Comfort v. Irvingreen | 1 | 1 |
| Matter of Giano v. Prackgreen | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Wilson v. Annuccigreen1 sentence2017Finally, petitioner’s challenge to the timeliness of the hearing is without merit as the record reflects that the hearing was commenced in accordance with a valid extension request (see Matter of Wilson v Annucci, 138 AD3d 1335, 1335 [2016]). | 1 | 1 |
| Andrea v. Arnone, Hedin, Casker, Kennedy & Drake, Architects & Landscape Architects, P.C.green | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Legeros v. Annuccigreen1 sentence2017Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the misbehavior report complied with the timeliness requirement of 7 NYCRR 251-3.1 (a) that it be written as soon as practicable inasmuch as it was issued once the investigation into petitioner’s conduct was complete (see Matter of Legeros v Annucci, 147 AD3d 1175, 1176 [2017]). | 1 | 1 |
| Vidal v. Annuccigreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gee v. Goordgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re the Claim of Newmangreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re the Claim of Fleischergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Long Island Lighting Co. v. Allianz Underwriters Insurancegreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Gallinagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Taylor v. Fischergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rosario v. Goordgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re the Arbitration between the County of Rockland & Primiano Construction Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Black v. Goordgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Shell v. Superintendent of Oneida Correctional Facilitygreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Women's Interart Ctr., Inc. v. Clinton Hous. Dev. Fund Corp.
green
2 sentences2018Turning to petitioner's procedural contentions, we find no merit to petitioner's challenge to the timeliness of the hearing inasmuch as valid extensions were obtained, and the hearing was completed within the time period set forth therein ( see Matter of Clark v Smith , 155 AD3d 1232, 1234 [2017]; Matter of Jackson v Annucci , 144 AD3d 1285, 1286 [2016], lv denied 29 NY3d 907 [2017]). 2017To the extent that petitioner’s challenge to the timeliness of the hearing is preserved for our review, we find it to be lacking in merit, as the hearing was completed within the time period authorized by and set forth in the valid extensions that were obtained (see Matter of Wigfall v Department of Corr. & Community Supervision, 153 AD3d 1464, 1465 [2017]; Matter of Jackson v Annucci, 144 AD3d 1285, 1286 [2016], lv denied 29 NY3d 907 [2017]). | 3 | 2017–2018 |
Blocker v. Fischer
neutral
2 sentences2017“In any event, the regulatory time limits are directory, rather than mandatory, and petitioner has failed to show that he suffered prejudice as a result of the . . . delay” (Matter of Blocker v Fischer, 100 AD3d 1118 , 1119 [2012] [citation omitted], lv denied 21 NY3d 857 [2013]). 2017To the extent that petitioner challenges the basis for the extensions obtained and the timeliness of the hearing, we note that the regulatory time limits are directory, rather than mandatory, and petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he suffered any prejudice as a result of any delay (see Matter of De La Cruz v Bezio, 107 AD3d 1275, 1276 [2013]; Matter of Blocker v Fischer, 100 AD3d 1118 , 1119 [2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 857 [2013]). | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Vastola v. Maer
green
2 sentences1999That goal would not be served by a rule which would render the timeliness of a claim dependent upon the speed with which a court decides a motion (see, Vastola v Maer, 48 AD2d 561, 564 , affd 39 NY2d 1019 ). 1981As Presiding Justice Rabin stated in Vastola v Maer ( 48 AD2d 561, 564 ): “[t]he purpose of the statute [of limitations] is in no way served by a rule which would place the plaintiff in a position whereby the timeliness of his claim would depend upon the speed with which a court decides a motion.” Accordingly, litigants may not be penalized for the time which a court devotes to the decision of a matter before it. | 2 | 1981–1999 |
Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co. v. Luckie
green
2 sentences1997Section 15 and other like rules are eligibility requirements, not Statutes of Limitation (see, Matter of Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v Manhard, 201 AD2d 347 , revd in part on other grounds 85 NY2d 193 ; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v DeChaine, 194 AD2d 472 , lv denied 82 NY2d 657 ). 1996With respect to the Portfolio 100, L.P. investment claim, all issues, including the timeliness of the claim, are for the arbitrator under the Federal Arbitration Act, which governs the agreement to arbitrate in the absence of an explicit choice of law provision (see, Matter of Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co. v Luckie, 85 NY2d 193, 202 ; Mastrobuono v Shearson Lehman Hutton, 514 US 52 ). | 2 | 1996–1997 |
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. DeChaine
green
2 sentences1997Section 15 and other like rules are eligibility requirements, not Statutes of Limitation (see, Matter of Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v Manhard, 201 AD2d 347 , revd in part on other grounds 85 NY2d 193 ; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v DeChaine, 194 AD2d 472 , lv denied 82 NY2d 657 ). 1997Rule 605 (a) and similar provisions have been held to be “not simply procedural limitations on the timeliness of a claim but limitations on the power of the arbitrator to entertain such claims. [They] are eligibility requirements, not statutes of limitations” (Smith Barney Shearson v Sacharow, 238 AD2d 155 ; see, Matter of Smith Barney v Hause, 238 AD2d 104 ; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v Ohnuma, 218 AD2d 572 ; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v DeChaine, 194 AD2d 472 ; Matter of Prudential Bache Sec. v Archard, 179 AD2d 652 ). | 2 | 1997–1997 |
Matter of 989 Hempstead Turnpike, LLC v. Town Bd. of the Town of Hempstead
green
1 sentence2026Because the timeliness of the hearing is directory, petitioner must demonstrate that he was substantially prejudiced by the delay in order to obtain the relief of annulment that he now seeks ( see Matter of 989 Hempstead Turnpike, LLC v Town Bd. of the Town of Hempstead , 215 AD3d at 670 ; Matter of Pena v New York State Gaming Commn. , 127 AD3d at 1290 ). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Matter of Pena v. New York State Gaming Commission
green
1 sentence2026Because the timeliness of the hearing is directory, petitioner must demonstrate that he was substantially prejudiced by the delay in order to obtain the relief of annulment that he now seeks ( see Matter of 989 Hempstead Turnpike, LLC v Town Bd. of the Town of Hempstead , 215 AD3d at 670 ; Matter of Pena v New York State Gaming Commn. , 127 AD3d at 1290 ). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Vaughn
green
1 sentence2024First, the record establishes that the trial court limited the expert's testimony not due to some vague concern about trial delay but because the court determined on the merits that the testimony was unnecessary. [FN8] The Appellate Division similarly addressed the merits of defendant's proffered expert testimony and made no mention of a timeliness bar as justification for the trial court's decision ( see 217 AD3d at 783 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Di Nuzzo v. Gardner
green
1 sentence2021No. 22 of City of N.Y. , 75 NY2d 997, 1000 [1990]). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Genyard v. Annucci
green
1 sentence2018The record reflects that petitioner received adequate employee assistance, and he failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by his assistant's alleged deficiencies ( see Matter of Canzater-Smith v Venettozzi , 150 AD3d at 1519 ; Matter of Genyard v Annucci , 136 AD3d at 1091 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Matter of Canzater-Smith v. Venettozzi
green
1 sentence2018The record reflects that petitioner received adequate employee assistance, and he failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by his assistant's alleged deficiencies ( see Matter of Canzater-Smith v Venettozzi , 150 AD3d at 1519 ; Matter of Genyard v Annucci , 136 AD3d at 1091 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| In re Village of Port Chester green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| People ex rel. Haddock v. Dolce green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Hargrove v. State of New York green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Zappone v. Home Insurance green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Morusma v. Fischer green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| People ex rel. Morant v. Warden green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Fleckenstein v. Nehrbas neutral | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Matter of Milone v. Trustees of Freeholders & Commonality of Town of Easthampton neutral | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Lepkowski v. State of NY green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| YONKERS CONTR. v. Port Auth. green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Clavin v. Town of Montgomery green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Prout v. Hurburt neutral | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| United States v. Ige green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Abramov v. Board of Assessors green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Rosen v. Assessor of City of Troy green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.