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.
9 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1979–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Agostino v. Vydianathangreen2 sentences2014A property owner has no common-law duty to prevent vegetation growing on its property from creating a visual obstruction to users of a public roadway (see Lubitz v Village of Scarsdale, 31 AD3d 618, 620 [2006]; Agostino v Masi, 28 AD3d 501, 502 [2006]). 2014A property owner has no common-law duty to prevent vegetation growing on its property from creating a visual obstruction to users of a public roadway (see Lubitz v Village of Scarsdale, 31 AD3d 618, 620 [2006]; Agostino v Masi, 28 AD3d 501, 502 [2006]). | 2 | 2 |
Lubitz v. Village of Scarsdalegreen2 sentences2014Although such a duty may be imposed by a specific regulatory provision (see Lubitz v Village of Scarsdale, 31 AD3d at 620 ), the ordinances which Associates and the Center defendants allegedly violated, Code of the Town of Clarkstown §§ 216-4 and 250-6, were not intended to protect motorists from the hazards of vegetation which obstruct views at intersections of streets and driveways (see Wheeler v Buxton Indus. 2014Although such a duty may be imposed by a specific regulatory provision (see Lubitz v Village of Scarsdale, 31 AD3d at 620 ), the ordinances which Associates and the Center defendants allegedly violated, Code of the Town of Clarkstown §§ 216-4 and 250-6, were not intended to protect motorists from the hazards of vegetation which obstruct views at intersections of streets and driveways (see Wheeler v Buxton Indus. | 2 | 2 |
Ippolito v. TJC Development, LLCgreen1 sentence2024"The doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel apply to arbitration awards with the same force and effect as they apply to judgments of a court" ( Ippolito v TJC Dev., LLC , 83 AD3d 57, 72 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of American Ins. | 1 | 1 |
MATTER OF JUAN C. v. Cortinesgreen1 sentence2018We reject the Justice Center's contention that applying collateral estoppel here would impermissibly "interfere with the proper allocation of authority" between the Justice Center's role as counsel for state agencies and its role as an oversight agency ( Matter of Juan C. v Cortines , 89 NY2d 659, 669 [1997]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Kellygreen1 sentence2005Indeed, after reviewing the records in camera, County Court granted the Center’s motion to quash the subpoena because it found that the records contained no statements by the victim or any other relevant information to the defense (see People v Gissendanner, 48 NY2d 543, 550 [1979]; People v Kelly, 288 AD2d 695, 696 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 756 [2002]; see also Matter of Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v Town of Moreau Assessor, 8 AD3d 935, 937 [2004]). | 1 | 1 |
Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Town of Moreau Assessorgreen1 sentence2005Indeed, after reviewing the records in camera, County Court granted the Center’s motion to quash the subpoena because it found that the records contained no statements by the victim or any other relevant information to the defense (see People v Gissendanner, 48 NY2d 543, 550 [1979]; People v Kelly, 288 AD2d 695, 696 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 756 [2002]; see also Matter of Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v Town of Moreau Assessor, 8 AD3d 935, 937 [2004]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Gissendannergreen1 sentence2005Indeed, after reviewing the records in camera, County Court granted the Center’s motion to quash the subpoena because it found that the records contained no statements by the victim or any other relevant information to the defense (see People v Gissendanner, 48 NY2d 543, 550 [1979]; People v Kelly, 288 AD2d 695, 696 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 756 [2002]; see also Matter of Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v Town of Moreau Assessor, 8 AD3d 935, 937 [2004]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Carpentergreen1 sentence2005It is well settled that “a subpoena duces tecum may not be used for the purpose of ascertaining the existence of evidence” (People v Carpenter, 240 AD2d 863, 864 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 902 [1997]), and our review of the records supplied by the Center reveals no statements by the victim or any other substantive information that could be construed as pertinent to the defense. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ventricelli v. Kinney System Rent A Car, Inc.
green
1 sentence2008Rent A Car, 45 NY2d 950 [1978]). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Graham v. Richardson
green
1 sentence2001Graham v Richardson ( 403 US 365 , supra) is at the center of our analysis. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Murray v. City of New York
green
1 sentence1980(Murray v City of New York, 43 NY2d 400 .) In view of the foregoing, the defendant Center’s motion for reargument is granted and upon such reargument leave to amend its answer is granted to the following extent: The defendant Center may serve a verified amended answer asserting that proposed affirmative defense which directly confronts the sponsor’s liability and has heretofore been designated in defendant Center’s prior application as a proposed second affirmative defense. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Shaffer v. Heitner
green
1 sentence1979Mr. Justice Marshall in delivering the opinion of the court in Shaffer v Heitner ( 433 US 186, 209 , supra) clearly acknowledged that the type of quasi in rem action affected by the new holding is one in which the property which serves "as the basis for state-court jurisdiction is completely unrelated to the plaintiff’s cause of action”. "[T]he relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation” must be the center of the inquiry (p 204). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.