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.
69 New York opinions name it 5 courts 1990–2026 32 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ki Tae Kim v. Bishopgreen2 sentences2024"A court has the discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse where that claim is supported by a detailed and credible explanation, although mere neglect is not a reasonable excuse" (Matter of Castellotti v Castellotti, 165 AD3d 926 [2d Dept 2018], citing Ki Tae Kim v. Bishop, 156 AD3d 776, 777 [2d Dept 2017]). 2023The court has discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse where that claim "is supported by a detailed and credible explanation of the default at issue" ( Ki Tae Kim v Bishop , 156 AD3d 776, 777 ; see U.S. Bank N.A. v Stathakis , 202 AD3d 1026, 1026 ; Bank of Am., N.A. v Murjani , 199 AD3d 630, 631 ). | 4 | 8 |
Rivera-Guallpa v. County of Nassaugreen2 sentences2011While the petitioner’s excuse for her failure to serve a timely notice of claim is not reasonable (see Matter of Baglivi v Town of Southold, 301 AD2d 597, 598 [2003]), where there is actual notice and absence of prejudice, the lack of a reasonable excuse will not bar the granting of leave to serve a late notice of claim (see Matter of Brownstein v Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead, 52 AD3d 507, 510 [2008]; Matter of Rivera-Guallpa v County of Nassau, 40 AD3d 1001, 1002 [2007]; Gibbs v City of New York, 22 AD3d at 720 ). 2009Finally, where there is actual notice and an absence of prejudice, the lack of a reasonable excuse will not bar the granting of leave to serve a late notice of claim (see Brownstein v Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead, 52 AD3d at 510 ; Matter of Rivera Guallpa v County of Nassau, 40 AD3d 1001, 1002 [2007]; Gibbs v City of New York, 22 AD3d at 720 ). | 4 | 4 |
Bank of N.Y. Mellon Trust Co. N.A. v. Hsugreen2 sentences2025Mellon Trust Co. N.A. v Hsu , 204 AD3d 874, 876 ). "'However, law office failure should not be excused . . . where allegations of law office failure are vague, conclusory, and unsubstantiated'" ( id. , quoting Glukhman v Bay 49th St. 2025Mellon Trust Co. N.A. v Hsu , 204 AD3d 874, 876 ). "'However, law office failure should not be excused . . . where allegations of law office failure are vague, conclusory, and unsubstantiated'" ( id. , quoting Glukhman v Bay 49th St. | 2 | 4 |
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Murjanigreen2 sentences2025"A 'court has discretion to accept law office [*2]failure as a reasonable excuse where that claim is supported by a detailed and credible explanation'" ( Guilfoyl v Watts , 212 AD3d 785, 786 , quoting Bank of Am., N.A. v Murjani , 199 AD3d 630, 631 [citation omitted]; see Ferreira v Singh , 176 AD3d 782 , 784). 2024"A 'court has [the] discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse where that claim is supported by a detailed and credible explanation'" ( Guilfoyl v Watts , 212 AD3d 785, 786 , quoting Bank of Am., N.A. v Murjani , 199 AD3d 630, 631 [citation omitted]; see Ferreira v Singh , 176 AD3d at 784). | 2 | 3 |
Allano v. Olivagreen2 sentences2015Moreover, the petitioner established a lack of substantial prejudice to the City’s ability to defend the claim (see Matter of Brownstein v Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead, 52 AD3d 507, 510 [2008]). “[W]here there is actual notice and an absence of prejudice, the lack of a reasonable excuse will not bar the granting of leave to serve a late notice of claim” (Erichson v City of Poughkeepsie Police Dept., 66 AD3d at 821 ). 2011While the petitioner’s excuse for her failure to serve a timely notice of claim is not reasonable (see Matter of Baglivi v Town of Southold, 301 AD2d 597, 598 [2003]), where there is actual notice and absence of prejudice, the lack of a reasonable excuse will not bar the granting of leave to serve a late notice of claim (see Matter of Brownstein v Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead, 52 AD3d 507, 510 [2008]; Matter of Rivera-Guallpa v County of Nassau, 40 AD3d 1001, 1002 [2007]; Gibbs v City of New York, 22 AD3d at 720 ). | 2 | 3 |
LaSalle Bank, N.A. v. LoRussogreen2 sentences2024"Conclusory and unsubstantiated allegations of law office failure are not sufficient" ( Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Ramnarine , 172 AD3d 886 , 886 [2d Dept 2018]), quoting LaSalle Bank, N.A. v LoRusso , 155 AD3d 706, 707 [2d Dept 2017]. 2024"Conclusory and unsubstantiated allegations of law office failure are not sufficient" ( Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Ramnarine , 172 AD3d 886 , 886 [2d Dept 2018]), quoting LaSalle Bank, N.A. v LoRusso , 155 AD3d 706, 707 [2d Dept 2017]. | 2 | 2 |
HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Josephgreen2 sentences2024The court has discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse where that claim is "supported by a detailed and credible explanation" of the default at issue ( Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Hakim , —NYS3d—, 2024 NY Slip Op 04479, *1 [2d Dept 2024], citing HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Joseph , 209 AD3d 633, 634 [2d Dept 2022]; see CPLR 2005]. 2024The court has discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse where that claim is "supported by a detailed and credible explanation" of the default at issue ( Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Hakim , —NYS3d—, 2024 NY Slip Op 04479, *1 [2d Dept 2024], citing HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Joseph , 209 AD3d 633, 634 [2d Dept 2022]; see CPLR 2005]. | 2 | 2 |
Pawoor Kim v. Xin Chengreen2 sentences2024"The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the Supreme Court's discretion, and the court has discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse where that claim is supported by a detailed and credible explanation of the default at issue" ( Pawoor Kim v Xin Chen , 189 AD3d 1061, 1062 [internal quotation marks omitted]). 2022"The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the Supreme Court's discretion, and the court has discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse where that claim is supported by a detailed and credible explanation of the default at issue" ( Pawoor Kim v Xin Chen , 189 AD3d at 1062 [internal quotation marks omitted]). | 2 | 2 |
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Hakimgreen2 sentences2024The court has discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse where that claim is "supported by a detailed and credible explanation" of the default at issue ( Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Hakim , —NYS3d—, 2024 NY Slip Op 04479, *1 [2d Dept 2024], citing HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Joseph , 209 AD3d 633, 634 [2d Dept 2022]; see CPLR 2005]. 2024The court has discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse where that claim is "supported by a detailed and credible explanation" of the default at issue ( Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Hakim , —NYS3d—, 2024 NY Slip Op 04479, *1 [2d Dept 2024], citing HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Joseph , 209 AD3d 633, 634 [2d Dept 2022]; see CPLR 2005]. | 2 | 2 |
Nationstar Mtge., LLC v. Mandelgreen2 sentences2023The court "has discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse where that claim is supported by a detailed and credible explanation of the default at issue" ( Ki Tae Kim v Bishop , 156 AD3d at 777 [citation omitted]; see Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Mandel , 208 AD3d 668, 669 ). 2023The court "has discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse where that claim is supported by a detailed and credible explanation of the default at issue" ( Ki Tae Kim v Bishop , 156 AD3d at 777 [citation omitted]; see Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Mandel , 208 AD3d 668, 669 ). | 2 | 2 |
Swensen v. MV Transportation, Inc.green2 sentences2020"The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the Supreme Court's discretion, and the Supreme Court has the discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse where that claim is supported by a detailed and credible explanation of the default or defaults at issue" ( Swensen v MV Transp., Inc ., 89 AD3d 924, 925 [citations and internal quotation marks omitted]). 2014“The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the Supreme Court’s discretion, and the Supreme Court has the discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse where that claim is supported by a detailed and credible explanation of the default or defaults at issue” (Swensen v MV Transp., Inc., 89 AD3d 924, 925 [2011] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). | 2 | 2 |
Goldstein v. Meadows Redevelopment Co Owners Corp. Igreen2 sentences2012A court may, in its discretion, accept a claim of law office failure as satisfying the reasonable excuse requirement (see CPLR 2005; Goldstein Meadows Redevelopment Co Owners Corp. I, 46 AD3d 509, 511 [2007]). 2012A court may, in its discretion, accept a claim of law office failure as satisfying the reasonable excuse requirement (see CPLR 2005; Goldstein Meadows Redevelopment Co Owners Corp. I, 46 AD3d 509, 511 [2007]). | 2 | 2 |
Erichson v. City of Poughkeepsie Police Departmentgreen2 sentences2020Dist. , 28 NY3d at 466 ). "[W]here there is actual notice and an absence of prejudice, the lack of a reasonable excuse will not bar the granting of leave to serve a late notice of claim" ( Erichson v City of Poughkeepsie Police Dept. , 66 AD3d 820, 821 ; see Matter of John P. v Plainedge Union Free Sch. 2018Given the petitioner's infancy, the school district's actual notice, and the absence of prejudice, the lack of a reasonable excuse will not bar the granting of leave to serve a late notice of claim ( see Matter of Jaffier v City of New York, 148 AD3d 1021, 1023 ; Erichson v City of Poughkeepsie Police Dept., 66 AD3d 820, 821 ). | 1 | 4 |
Hudson City Sav. Bank v. Augustingreen2 sentences2022Bank v Augustin , 191 AD3d 774, 775 ). "[M]ere neglect is not a reasonable excuse" ( Hudson City Sav. 2022Bank v Augustin , 191 AD3d 774 ). "[M]ere neglect is not a reasonable excuse" ( Hudson City Sav. | 1 | 3 |
Vasquez v. City of Newburghgreen2 sentences2014Furthermore, the lack of a reasonable excuse will not bar the granting of leave to serve a late notice of claim where, as here, there is actual notice and an absence of prejudice (see Matter of Joy v County of Suffolk, 89 AD3d at 1027 ; Matter of Vasquez v City of Newburgh, 35 AD3d at 623-624 ). 2014Furthermore, the lack of a reasonable excuse will not bar the granting of leave to serve a late notice of claim where, as here, there is actual notice and an absence of prejudice (see Matter of Joy v County of Suffolk, 89 AD3d at 1027 ; Matter of Vasquez v City of Newburgh, 35 AD3d at 623-624 ). | 1 | 3 |
Rodriguez v. Westchester Med. Ctr. (WMC)green2 sentences2025Ctr. [WMC] , 196 AD3d at 660-661 ; J.H. v New York City Health & Hosps. 2025Ctr. [WMC] , 196 AD3d at 660-661; J.H. v New York City Health & Hosps. | 1 | 2 |
Montero v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.green2 sentences2009Corp., 17 AD3d 550 [2005]; Matter of Hendershot v Westchester Med. 2008Corp., 17 AD3d 550, 550-551 [2005]; Matter of Hendershot v Westchester Med. | 1 | 2 |
| Chowdhury v. Weldongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Cusumano v. Riley Land Surveyors, LLPgreen | 1 | 1 |
| U.S. Bank N.A. v. Stathakisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Muhammed v. Federal Express Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Bank of Am., N.A. v. Russellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Thomas v. Avalon Gardens Rehabilitation & Health Care Centergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Horio Realty Corp. v. Hunts Point Flower Mkt., Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Remote Meter Technology of NY, Inc. v. Aris Realty Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Dobbyn-Blackmore v. City of New Yorkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mary Imogene Bassett Hospital v. Cannon Design, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Keller v. Merchant Capital Portfolios, LLCgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Henry v. Kuvekegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Santiago v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Keybank, USA, NA v. Government Employees Insurancegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Callaghan v. Curtisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Roussodimou v. Zafiriadisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re Mary Veronica R. Suffolk County Department of Social Servicesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Robertson v. New York City Housing Authoritygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Baglivi v. Town of Southoldgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Formisano v. Eastchester Union Free School Districtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Doukas v. East Meadow Union Free School Districtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hartford Insurance of Midwest v. Creinisgreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
OneWest Bank, FSB v. Singer
green
2 sentences2022"Although a court has discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse where that claim is supported by a detailed and credible explanation of the default at issue, [*2]'mere neglect is not a reasonable excuse'" ( Matthews v Vivero , 189 AD3d 1389, 1390 , quoting OneWest Bank, FSB v Singer , 153 AD3d 714, 716 ). 2020Although a court has discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse where that claim is supported by a detailed and credible explanation of the default at issue, "mere neglect is not a reasonable excuse" ( OneWest Bank, FSB v Singer , 153 AD3d 714, 716 ). | 7 | 2018–2025 |
Joy v. County of Suffolk
green
2 sentences2025Auth. , 226 AD3d at 898). "[W]here there is actual notice and absence of prejudice, the lack of a reasonable excuse will not bar the granting of leave to serve a late notice of claim" ( Matter of Joy v County of Suffolk , 89 AD3d 1025, 1027 ; see Matter of Guerre v New York City Tr. 2024A petitioner's lack of a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving a timely notice of claim is "not necessarily fatal" to an application for leave to serve late notice ( Matter of Johnson v County of Suffolk , 167 AD3d 742 , 745 [internal quotation marks omitted]). "[W]here there is actual notice and absence of prejudice, the lack of a reasonable excuse will not bar the granting of leave to serve a late notice of claim" ( Matter of Joy v County of Suffolk , 89 AD3d 1025, 1027 ). | 5 | 2014–2025 |
Putney v. Pearlman
neutral
2 sentences2009A court may, in its discretion, accept a claim of law office failure as satisfying the reasonable excuse requirement (see CPLR 2005; Putney v Pearlman, 203 AD2d 333 [1994]; Vierya v Briggs & Stratton Corp., 166 AD2d 645 [1990]). 2000A court may, in its discretion, accept a claim of law office failure as satisfying the reasonable-excuse requirement (see, Putney v Pearlman, supra; CPLR 2005). | 4 | 1996–2009 |
Gibbs v. City of New York
green
2 sentences2011While the petitioner’s excuse for her failure to serve a timely notice of claim is not reasonable (see Matter of Baglivi v Town of Southold, 301 AD2d 597, 598 [2003]), where there is actual notice and absence of prejudice, the lack of a reasonable excuse will not bar the granting of leave to serve a late notice of claim (see Matter of Brownstein v Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead, 52 AD3d 507, 510 [2008]; Matter of Rivera-Guallpa v County of Nassau, 40 AD3d 1001, 1002 [2007]; Gibbs v City of New York, 22 AD3d at 720 ). 2009Finally, where there is actual notice and an absence of prejudice, the lack of a reasonable excuse will not bar the granting of leave to serve a late notice of claim (see Brownstein v Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead, 52 AD3d at 510 ; Matter of Rivera Guallpa v County of Nassau, 40 AD3d 1001, 1002 [2007]; Gibbs v City of New York, 22 AD3d at 720 ). | 3 | 2008–2011 |
Vierya v. Briggs & Stratton Corp.
green
2 sentences2010It is also settled law that, under CPLR 2005 and supporting case law, a court may, in its discretion, accept a claim of law office failure as satisfying the reasonable excuse requirement (see CPLR 2005; Vierya v Briggs & Stratton Corp., 166 AD2d 645 [1990]; Searing v Anand, 127 AD2d 582 [1987]; Alternative Automotive v Mowbray, 101 AD2d 715 [1984]). 2009A court may, in its discretion, accept a claim of law office failure as satisfying the reasonable excuse requirement (see CPLR 2005; Putney v Pearlman, 203 AD2d 333 [1994]; Vierya v Briggs & Stratton Corp., 166 AD2d 645 [1990]). | 3 | 1994–2010 |
Guilfoyl v. Watts
green
2 sentences2025"A 'court has discretion to accept law office [*2]failure as a reasonable excuse where that claim is supported by a detailed and credible explanation'" ( Guilfoyl v Watts , 212 AD3d 785, 786 , quoting Bank of Am., N.A. v Murjani , 199 AD3d 630, 631 [citation omitted]; see Ferreira v Singh , 176 AD3d 782 , 784). 2024"A 'court has [the] discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse where that claim is supported by a detailed and credible explanation'" ( Guilfoyl v Watts , 212 AD3d 785, 786 , quoting Bank of Am., N.A. v Murjani , 199 AD3d 630, 631 [citation omitted]; see Ferreira v Singh , 176 AD3d at 784). | 2 | 2024–2025 |
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Baptiste
green
2 sentences2025Here, while the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that the defendants proffered a reasonable excuse for their default due to the law office failure of their attorney ( see JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Baptiste , 188 AD3d 848, 850 ), the court improvidently exercised its discretion in vacating the defendants' default because they failed to establish a reasonable excuse for the more than six-year delay in cross-moving to vacate the clerk's judgment ( see Cho v Ibrahina , 229 AD3d 610 , 611; Chowdhury v Weldon , 185 AD3d at 650 ). 2021"Such a motion is addressed to the sound discretion of the motion court" ( JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Baptiste , 188 AD3d 848, 850 ). "'The court has discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse where the claim is supported by a detailed and credible explanation of the default,' but [c]onclusory and unsubstantiated allegations of law office failure are not sufficient. [M]ere neglect is not a reasonable excuse" ( Hudson City Sav. | 2 | 2021–2025 |
Newcomb v. Middle Country Central School District
green
2 sentences2020Dist. , 28 NY3d at 466 ). "[W]here there is actual notice and an absence of prejudice, the lack of a reasonable excuse will not bar the granting of leave to serve a late notice of claim" ( Erichson v City of Poughkeepsie Police Dept. , 66 AD3d 820, 821 ; see Matter of John P. v Plainedge Union Free Sch. 2017Dist., 28 NY3d 455 [2016]). “[W]here there is actual notice and an absence of prejudice, the lack of a reasonable excuse will not bar the granting of leave to serve a late notice of claim” (Erichson v City of Poughkeepsie Police Dept., 66 AD3d 820, 821 [2009]). | 2 | 2017–2020 |
Servilus v. Walcott
green
2 sentences2019A court has the discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse where that claim is supported by a detailed and credible explanation, although mere neglect is not a reasonable excuse ( see Ki Tae Kim v Bishop , 156 AD3d 776, 777 ; Onewest Bank, FSB v Singer , 153 AD3d 714, 716 ; Servilus v Walcott , 148 AD3d 743 ). 2018A court has the discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse where that claim is supported by a detailed and credible explanation, although mere neglect is not a reasonable excuse ( see Ki Tae Kim v Bishop , 156 AD3d 776, 777 ; Onewest Bank, FSB v Singer , 153 AD3d 714, 716 ; Servilus v Walcott , 148 AD3d 743, 744 ). | 2 | 2018–2019 |
Alternative Automotive, Inc. v. Mowbray
green
2 sentences2010It is also settled law that, under CPLR 2005 and supporting case law, a court may, in its discretion, accept a claim of law office failure as satisfying the reasonable excuse requirement (see CPLR 2005; Vierya v Briggs & Stratton Corp., 166 AD2d 645 [1990]; Searing v Anand, 127 AD2d 582 [1987]; Alternative Automotive v Mowbray, 101 AD2d 715 [1984]). 1990A court may, in its discretion, accept a claim of law office failure as satisfying the reasonable excuse requirement (see, CPLR 2005; Searing v Anand, 127 AD2d 582 ; Alternative Automotive v Mowbray, 101 AD2d 715 ). | 2 | 1990–2010 |
Searing v. Anand
green
2 sentences2010It is also settled law that, under CPLR 2005 and supporting case law, a court may, in its discretion, accept a claim of law office failure as satisfying the reasonable excuse requirement (see CPLR 2005; Vierya v Briggs & Stratton Corp., 166 AD2d 645 [1990]; Searing v Anand, 127 AD2d 582 [1987]; Alternative Automotive v Mowbray, 101 AD2d 715 [1984]). 1990A court may, in its discretion, accept a claim of law office failure as satisfying the reasonable excuse requirement (see, CPLR 2005; Searing v Anand, 127 AD2d 582 ; Alternative Automotive v Mowbray, 101 AD2d 715 ). | 2 | 1990–2010 |
Deutsche Bank, AG v. Vik
green
2 sentences2026Corp. , 149 AD3d 600 [1st Dept 2017] [finding defendant's belief that he need not appear in court was unreasonable considering he was in receipt of various court documents relating to the matter over the course of three years]). 2026Corp. , 149 AD3d 600 [1st Dept 2017] [finding defendant's belief that he need not appear in court was unreasonable considering he was in receipt of various court documents relating to the matter over the course of three years]). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Kamil El-Deiry & Assoc. CPA, PLLC v. Excellent Home Care Servs., LLC
green
1 sentence2025CPA, PLLC v Excellent Home Care Servs., LLC , 208 AD3d 1170, 1171 ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Hutchinson green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Andersen v. Long Island Railroad green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Ahmed v. New York City Health & Hosp. Corp. green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Beach 28 RE, LLC v. Somra green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Sanchez v. City of New York green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Russell v. Kadiwar neutral | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Young Su Hwangbo v. Nastro green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Matthews v. Vivero green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Sarcona v. J & J Air Container Station, Inc. neutral | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Hayden v. Vevante neutral | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Brunson v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Matter of Jaffier v. City of New York green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Bank of New York v. Young green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Sugar Foods De Mexico v. Scientific Scents, LLC green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Gibbs v. St. Barnabas Hospital green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Mounsey v. City of New York green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Billman v. Town of Deerpark green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Lawrence v. Esplanade Gardens, Inc. green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Kravtsov v. Wong neutral | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Labozzetta v. Fabbro green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Astree v. New York City Transit Authority green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| O'Garro v. Brown green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Fennell v. Mason green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.