9 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Leon Petroleum, LLC v. Carl S. Levine & Associates, P.C.green2 sentences2024Defendant fails to offer a reasonable explanation as to how changing a word in the release entered into between his client and her former employer, which substantially changed the meaning of the contractual provisions , or suborning his client's perjury in the related Federal discrimination action, constitute reasonable strategic choices ( cf. Leon Petroleum, LLC v Carl S. Levine & Assoc., P.C. , 122 AD3d 686, 687 [2d Dept 2014]). 2024Defendant fails to offer a reasonable explanation as to how changing a word in the release entered into between his client and her former employer, which substantially changed the meaning of the contractual provisions , or suborning his client's perjury in the related Federal discrimination action, constitute reasonable strategic choices ( cf. Leon Petroleum, LLC v Carl S. Levine & Assoc., P.C. , 122 AD3d 686, 687 [2d Dept 2014]). | 2 | 2 |
Saratoga Schenectady Gastroenterology Associates, P.C. v. Bette & Cring, LLCgreen2 sentences2014We agree with the court that this aspect of the complaint sufficiently states a claim for breach of contract by alleging that the trust was an intended third-party beneficiary of a contract between Belgraier and HWG, by which Belgraier was to provide services for the benefit of the trust and. its members, and that — knowing that her services were intended for the trust’s benefit—Belgraier breached the contract (see Saratoga Schenectady Gastroenterology Assoc., P.C. v Bette & Cring, LLC, 83 AD3d 1256, 1257-1258 [2011]; compare IMS Engrs.-Architects, P.C. v State of New York, 51 AD3d 1355, 1357 2014We agree with the court that this aspect of the complaint sufficiently states a claim for breach of contract by alleging that the trust was an intended third-party beneficiary of a contract between Belgraier and HWG, by which Belgraier was to provide services for the benefit of the trust and. its members, and that — knowing that her services were intended for the trust’s benefit—Belgraier breached the contract (see Saratoga Schenectady Gastroenterology Assoc., P.C. v Bette & Cring, LLC, 83 AD3d 1256, 1257-1258 [2011]; compare IMS Engrs.-Architects, P.C. v State of New York, 51 AD3d 1355, 1357 | 2 | 2 |
MATTER OF FRANK v. Stevensgreen2 sentences2014We agree with the court that this aspect of the complaint sufficiently states a claim for breach of contract by alleging that the trust was an intended third-party beneficiary of a contract between Belgraier and HWG, by which Belgraier was to provide services for the benefit of the trust and. its members, and that — knowing that her services were intended for the trust’s benefit—Belgraier breached the contract (see Saratoga Schenectady Gastroenterology Assoc., P.C. v Bette & Cring, LLC, 83 AD3d 1256, 1257-1258 [2011]; compare IMS Engrs.-Architects, P.C. v State of New York, 51 AD3d 1355, 1357 2014We agree with the court that this aspect of the complaint sufficiently states a claim for breach of contract by alleging that the trust was an intended third-party beneficiary of a contract between Belgraier and HWG, by which Belgraier was to provide services for the benefit of the trust and. its members, and that — knowing that her services were intended for the trust’s benefit—Belgraier breached the contract (see Saratoga Schenectady Gastroenterology Assoc., P.C. v Bette & Cring, LLC, 83 AD3d 1256, 1257-1258 [2011]; compare IMS Engrs.-Architects, P.C. v State of New York, 51 AD3d 1355, 1357 | 2 | 2 |
IMS Engineers-Architects, P.C. v. Stategreen2 sentences2014We agree with the court that this aspect of the complaint sufficiently states a claim for breach of contract by alleging that the trust was an intended third-party beneficiary of a contract between Belgraier and HWG, by which Belgraier was to provide services for the benefit of the trust and. its members, and that — knowing that her services were intended for the trust’s benefit—Belgraier breached the contract (see Saratoga Schenectady Gastroenterology Assoc., P.C. v Bette & Cring, LLC, 83 AD3d 1256, 1257-1258 [2011]; compare IMS Engrs.-Architects, P.C. v State of New York, 51 AD3d 1355, 1357 2014We agree with the court that this aspect of the complaint sufficiently states a claim for breach of contract by alleging that the trust was an intended third-party beneficiary of a contract between Belgraier and HWG, by which Belgraier was to provide services for the benefit of the trust and. its members, and that — knowing that her services were intended for the trust’s benefit—Belgraier breached the contract (see Saratoga Schenectady Gastroenterology Assoc., P.C. v Bette & Cring, LLC, 83 AD3d 1256, 1257-1258 [2011]; compare IMS Engrs.-Architects, P.C. v State of New York, 51 AD3d 1355, 1357 | 2 | 2 |
Harris v. Seward Park Housing Corp.green1 sentence2026Corp. , 79 AD3d 425, 426 [1st Dept 2010]). | 1 | 1 |
Cobble Hill Nursing Home, Inc. v. Henry & Warren Corp.green1 sentence2019The complaint sufficiently states a claim for breach of contract as it asserts all material and essential terms of the contract ( see Cobble Hill Nursing Home v Henry & Warren Corp. , 74 NY2d 475, 482 [1989]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2016School Dist., 69 AD3d 769, 771 [2d Dept 2010]; Fleet Bank v Pine Knoll Corp., 290 AD2d 792, 797 [3d Dept 2002]; Chemical Bank v City of Jamestown, 122 AD2d 530, 531 [4th Dept 1986], lv denied 68 NY2d 608 [1986]). | 1 | 1 |
MatlinPatterson ATA Holdings LLC v. Federal Express Corp.green1 sentence2016Although the breach of contract causes of action cannot stand, the complaint sufficiently states a claim under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. 5 The elements of a promissory estoppel claim are: (i) a sufficiently clear and unambiguous promise; (ii) reasonable reliance on the promise; and (iii) injury caused by the reliance (see MatlinPatterson ATA Holdings LLC v Federal Express Corp., 87 AD3d 836, 841-842 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 21 NY3d 853 [2013]; Agress v Clarkstown Cent. | 1 | 1 |
Chemical Bank v. City of Jamestowngreen1 sentence2016School Dist., 69 AD3d 769, 771 [2d Dept 2010]; Fleet Bank v Pine Knoll Corp., 290 AD2d 792, 797 [3d Dept 2002]; Chemical Bank v City of Jamestown, 122 AD2d 530, 531 [4th Dept 1986], lv denied 68 NY2d 608 [1986]). | 1 | 1 |
Fleet Bank v. Pine Knoll Corp.green1 sentence2016School Dist., 69 AD3d 769, 771 [2d Dept 2010]; Fleet Bank v Pine Knoll Corp., 290 AD2d 792, 797 [3d Dept 2002]; Chemical Bank v City of Jamestown, 122 AD2d 530, 531 [4th Dept 1986], lv denied 68 NY2d 608 [1986]). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Delaware County v. Leatherstocking Healthcare
green
2 sentences2014This aspect of the cause of action is not, as Belgraier contends, a disguised professional malpractice claim and, as it alleges that Belgraier was paid for her services through 2006, is not time-barred (see CPLR 213 [2]; Delaware County v Leatherstocking Healthcare, LLC, 110 AD3d at 1213 ). 2014This aspect of the cause of action is not, as Belgraier contends, a disguised professional malpractice claim and, as it alleges that Belgraier was paid for her services through 2006, is not time-barred (see CPLR 213 [2]; Delaware County v Leatherstocking Healthcare, LLC, 110 AD3d at 1213 ). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Tahari v. Narkis
green
1 sentence2025The complaint sufficiently states a claim of promissory estoppel. ( Castellotti v Free , 138 AD3d 198 ; Paramax Corp. v VoIP Supply, LLC , 175 AD3d 939 ; University Veterinary Specialists, LLC v Four Dimensional Digital Imaging LLC , 68 Misc 3d 1204[A] , 2020 NY Slip Op 50861[U] ; Tahari v Narkis , 216 AD3d 557 .) Olshan Frome Wolosky LLP , New York City ( Kerrin T. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Castellotti v. Free
green
1 sentence2025The complaint sufficiently states a claim of promissory estoppel. ( Castellotti v Free , 138 AD3d 198 ; Paramax Corp. v VoIP Supply, LLC , 175 AD3d 939 ; University Veterinary Specialists, LLC v Four Dimensional Digital Imaging LLC , 68 Misc 3d 1204[A] , 2020 NY Slip Op 50861[U] ; Tahari v Narkis , 216 AD3d 557 .) Olshan Frome Wolosky LLP , New York City ( Kerrin T. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Leon v. Martinez
green
1 sentence1999Accepting that and the other allegations of breach as true, and affording them every possible favorable inference, as we must on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (see, Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 ), the complaint sufficiently states a claim for breach of contract. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.