65 New York opinions name it 8 courts 1889–2025 11 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 |
|---|---|---|
Levin v. Kitsisgreen2 sentences2025"The elements of a cause of action to recover for constructive fraud are the same as those to recover for actual fraud with the crucial exception that the element of scienter upon the part of the defendant, his [or her] knowledge of the falsity of his [or her] representation, is dropped . . . and is replaced by a requirement that the plaintiff prove the existence of a fiduciary or confidential relationship warranting the trusting party to repose his [or her] confidence in the defendant and therefore to relax the care and vigilance he [or she] would ordinarily exercise in the circumstances" ( L 2025"The elements of a cause of action to recover for constructive fraud are the same as those to recover for actual fraud with the crucial exception that the element of scienter upon the part of the defendant, his [or her] knowledge of the falsity of his [or her] representation, is dropped . . . and is replaced by a requirement that the plaintiff prove the existence of a fiduciary or confidential relationship warranting the trusting party to repose his [or her] confidence in the defendant and therefore to relax the care and vigilance he [or she] would ordinarily exercise in the circumstances" ( L | 4 | 4 |
People v. Moulteriegreen2 sentences2023"The defendant's state of mind is the crucial inquiry when a claim of justification is asserted" (People v. Fore, 33 AD3d 932 [2d Dept. 2006] citing People v. Powell, 112 AD2d 450, 451 [l 985](internal citations omitted)). 2023However, it is "[t] he defendant's state of mind is the crucial inquiry when a claim of justification is asserted" (People v. Fore, 33 AD3d 932, 933 [2d Dept. 2006], citing, People v. Powell, 112 AD2d 450, 451 (l 985](intemal citations omitted)). | 2 | 4 |
Del Vecchio v. Nassau Countygreen2 sentences2018"The elements of a cause of action to recover for constructive fraud are the same as those to recover for actual fraud with the crucial exception that the element of scienter upon the part of the defendant, [their] knowledge of the falsity of [their] representation, is dropped" ( id. ; see Del Vecchio , 118 AD2d at 617-618). 2011“The elements of a cause of action to recover for constructive fraud are the same as those to recover for actual fraud with the crucial exception that the element of scienter upon the part of the defendant, his [or her] knowledge of the falsity of his representation, is dropped . . . and is replaced by a requirement that the plaintiff prove the existence of a fiduciary or confidential relationship warranting the trusting party to repose his [or her] confidence in the defendant and therefore to relax the care and vigilance he [or she] would ordinarily exercise in the circumstances” (Brown v Loc | 2 | 2 |
Brown v. Lockwoodgreen2 sentences2018"The elements of a cause of action to recover for constructive fraud are the same as those to recover for actual fraud with the crucial exception that the element of scienter upon the part of the defendant, [their] knowledge of the falsity of [their] representation, is dropped" ( id. ; see Del Vecchio , 118 AD2d at 617-618). 2011“The elements of a cause of action to recover for constructive fraud are the same as those to recover for actual fraud with the crucial exception that the element of scienter upon the part of the defendant, his [or her] knowledge of the falsity of his representation, is dropped . . . and is replaced by a requirement that the plaintiff prove the existence of a fiduciary or confidential relationship warranting the trusting party to repose his [or her] confidence in the defendant and therefore to relax the care and vigilance he [or she] would ordinarily exercise in the circumstances” (Brown v Loc | 1 | 2 |
Claim of Dependents of Marks v. Graygreen2 sentences2007“In cases such as this, involving allegedly employment-related travel, the crucial test is whether the employment created the necessity for travel . . . , i.e., the need to be on the particular route on which the accident occurred” (Cicatello v Sobierajski, 295 AD2d 974, 975 [2002]; see Greer v Ferrizz, 118 AD2d 536, 538 [1986]; see generally Matter of Marks v Gray, 251 NY 90, 93-94 [1929]). 1976In deciding whether this travel was within the scope of the driver’s employment, the crucial test is whether the employment created the necessity for travel (Matter of Marks.v Gray, 251 NY 90 ). | 1 | 2 |
People v. De Bourgreen2 sentences1993In assessing such encounters, the crucial inquiry is as to the reasonableness of the police action in all the circumstances analyzed under the four-tiered methodology set forth in People v De Bour (supra) and reaffirmed in People v Hollman (supra). 1984In evaluating the propriety of the police action, the crucial inquiry is whether or not such action was justified in its inception and whether or not it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which rendered its initiation permissible (People v De Bour, supra, p 222; People v Cantor, supra). | 1 | 2 |
Society of Plastics Industry, Inc. v. County of Suffolkgreen1 sentence2024The most crucial requirement for standing is the presence of “injury in fact—an actual legal stake in the matter being adjudicated” (Society of the Plastics Indus., Inc. v. County of Suffolk, 77 NY2d 761, 772 [1991]). | 1 | 1 |
Hovigam v. Marchand's School of Dance, Inc.green1 sentence2024Where a request for unsealing is made for purposes of securing such discovery, the crucial inquiry is whether there is a nexus between the information sealed in the matrimonial case file and the facts of the pending action or legal proceeding (see id.; Hovagim v Marchand’s School of Dance, Inc., 225 AD2d 522, 522-523 [2d Dept 1996]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Foregreen2 sentences2023"The defendant's state of mind is the crucial inquiry when a claim of justification is asserted" (People v. Fore, 33 AD3d 932 [2d Dept. 2006] citing People v. Powell, 112 AD2d 450, 451 [l 985](internal citations omitted)). 2023However, it is "[t] he defendant's state of mind is the crucial inquiry when a claim of justification is asserted" (People v. Fore, 33 AD3d 932, 933 [2d Dept. 2006], citing, People v. Powell, 112 AD2d 450, 451 (l 985](intemal citations omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Larhettegreen1 sentence2020Group, Inc. , 30 NY3d 288 , 305 n 6 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Davis v Larhette , 39 AD3d at 694 ). | 1 | 1 |
Mahoney v. Patakigreen1 sentence2019In cases against the government, “while the universe of potential plaintiffs must be circumscribed in order to avoid misuse of legal challenges to administrative actions, we must preserve access to the courts for those who have been wrongly injured by administrative action (or inaction) directly flowing from statutory authority” (Mahoney v Pataki, 98 NY2d 45, 52 [2002]). | 1 | 1 |
| Swartzlander v. Forms-Rite Business Forms & Printing Service, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
Sears v. First Pioneer Farm Creditgreen1 sentence2017“The elements of a cause of action to recover for constructive fraud are the same as those to recover for actual fraud with the crucial exception that the element of scienter ... is dropped and is replaced by a requirement . . . [to] prove the existence of a fiduciary or confidential relationship warranting the trusting party to repose his or her confidence in [a] defendant and therefore to relax the care and vigilance he or she would ordinarily exercise in the circumstances” (Le vin v Kitsis, 82 AD3d 1051, 1054 [2011] [internal quotation marks, brackets, ellipsis and citations omitted]; see S | 1 | 1 |
| Aoki v. Aokigreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sentlowitz v. Cardinal Development, LLCgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Leddick v. DLP Tavern Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Grohman v. Weissgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sokol v. Addisongreen | 1 | 1 |
| DiLauria v. Town of Harrisongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mulverhill v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Westmoreland Coal Co. v. Entech, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Greer v. Ferrizzgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Cicatello v. Sobierajskigreen | 1 | 1 |
| Carboni v. Teachers Retirement Systemgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Matos v. Michele Depalma Enterprises, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Rock v. Reed-Prentice Division of Package Machinery Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Allen v. McCurrygreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Henry P. v. Alicia C.
green
2 sentences1986When a defendant asserts a claim of justification, his state of mind is the crucial inquiry (People v Miller, 39 NY2d 543 ; People v Desmond, 93 AD2d 822 ). 1985The defendant’s state of mind is the crucial inquiry when a claim of justification is asserted (People v Miller, 39 NY2d 543 ; People v Long, 104 AD2d 902 ; People v Wagman, 99 AD2d 519 ; People v Desmond, 93 AD2d 822 ). | 5 | 1984–1986 |
People v. Viszokai
green
2 sentences1985The defendant’s state of mind is the crucial inquiry when a claim of justification is asserted (People v Miller, 39 NY2d 543 ; People v Long, 104 AD2d 902 ; People v Wagman, 99 AD2d 519 ; People v Desmond, 93 AD2d 822 ). 1984The defendant’s state of mind is the crucial inquiry when a claim of justification is raised (People v Miller, 39 NY2d 543 ; People v Wagman, 99 AD2d 519 ; People v Desmond, 93 AD2d 822 ). | 5 | 1984–1986 |
People v. Miller
green
2 sentences1986The defendant’s state of mind is the crucial inquiry when a claim of justification is asserted (see, People v Miller, 39 NY2d 543 ; People v Powell, 112 AD2d 450 ; People v Long, 104 AD2d 902 ). 1986When a defendant asserts a claim of justification, his state of mind is the crucial inquiry (People v Miller, 39 NY2d 543 ; People v Desmond, 93 AD2d 822 ). | 5 | 1984–1986 |
People v. Settles
green
2 sentences2018The crucial inquiry focuses on the intrinsic trustworthiness of the statement as confirmed by competent evidence independent of the declaration itself" ( Settles , 46 NY2d at 169 ; see People v Shortridge , 65 NY2d 309 , 313 [1985]). 2013“The crucial inquiry focuses on the intrinsic trustworthiness of the statement as confirmed by competent evidence independent of the declaration itself” (People v Settles, 46 NY2d at 169 ). | 4 | 1999–2018 |
State v. Chapman
green
2 sentences2008Co., supra, at 500-501). ‘The crucial inquiry is what issue or issues were necessarily decided in the first action’ (State of New York v Chapman, 136 AD2d 75, 79 )” (Mulverhill v State of New York, 257 AD2d 735, 737-738 [1999]). 1999“The crucial inquiry is what issue or issues were necessarily decided in the first action” (State of New York v Chapman, 136 AD2d 75, 79 ). | 3 | 1999–2008 |
People v. Long
green
2 sentences1986The defendant’s state of mind is the crucial inquiry when a claim of justification is asserted (see, People v Miller, 39 NY2d 543 ; People v Powell, 112 AD2d 450 ; People v Long, 104 AD2d 902 ). 1985The defendant’s state of mind is the crucial inquiry when a claim of justification is asserted (People v Miller, 39 NY2d 543 ; People v Long, 104 AD2d 902 ; People v Wagman, 99 AD2d 519 ; People v Desmond, 93 AD2d 822 ). | 3 | 1985–1986 |
Eurycleia Partners, LP v. Seward & Kissel, LLP
green
2 sentences2025A cause of action sounding in fraud must be pleaded with the requisite particularity under CPLR 3016(b) ( see Eurycleia Partners, LP v Seward & Kissel, LLP , 12 NY3d at 559 ). 2023A cause of action sounding in fraud must be pleaded with the requisite particularity under CPLR 3016(b) ( see Eurycleia Partners, LP v Seward & Kissel, LLP , 12 NY3d at 559 ). | 2 | 2023–2025 |
People v. Nesbitt
green
2 sentences2024People v Nesbitt , 20 NY3d 1080 [2013]). 2023In People v Nesbitt ( 20 NY3d 1080 [2013]), the defendant was accused of assault in the first degree. | 2 | 2023–2024 |
Schwartz v. Public Administrator
green
2 sentences1982See Allen v McCurry ( 449 US 90, 95 ), as to this crucial requirement; Schwartz v Public Administrator of County of Bronx, ( 24 NY2d 65, 71 ), as to New York’s adoption of the “full and fair opportunity test in applying the doctrine of collateral estoppel”; also Hazard, Revisiting the Second Restatement of Judgements: Issue Preclusion and Related Problems (66 Cornell L Rev 564, 575-579). . 1978The sanctions imposed and the burdens of proof are different * * * [T]hey are the crucial factors here.” (See, generally, Acquittal in Criminal Proceeding as Precluding Revocation of Probation on Same Charge, Ann. 76 ALR3d 564.) The holdings of Federal and other State courts which represent the decided weight of authority are entirely consistent with the New York doctrine of collateral estoppel as expressed in Schwartz v Public Administrator of County of Bronx ( 24 NY2d 65 , supra) and with the New York decisions in People ex rel. | 2 | 1978–1982 |
Pitcher v. Sutton
green
2 sentences1981Bank, 54 NYS2d 345 , 349; Pitcher v Sutton, 238 App Div 291, 293 , affd 264 NY 638 ) and is replaced by a requirement that the plaintiff prove the existence of a fiduciary or confidential relationship warranting the trusting party to repose his confidence in the defendant and therefore to relax the care and vigilance he would ordinarily exercise in the circumstances (Collins v Nelson, 193 Wash 334; see 37 CJS, Fraud, § 35). 1980Bank, 54 NYS2d 345 , 349; Pitcher v Sutton, 238 App Div 291, 293 , affd 264 NY 638 ) and is replaced by a requirement that the plaintiff prove the existence of a fiduciary or confidential relationship warranting the trusting party to repose his confidence in the defendant and therefore to relax the care and vigilance he would ordinarily exercise in the circumstances (Collins v Nelson, 193 Wash 334; see 37 CJS, Fraud, § 35). | 2 | 1980–1981 |
Pitcher v. Sutton
green
2 sentences1981Bank, 54 NYS2d 345 , 349; Pitcher v Sutton, 238 App Div 291, 293 , affd 264 NY 638 ) and is replaced by a requirement that the plaintiff prove the existence of a fiduciary or confidential relationship warranting the trusting party to repose his confidence in the defendant and therefore to relax the care and vigilance he would ordinarily exercise in the circumstances (Collins v Nelson, 193 Wash 334; see 37 CJS, Fraud, § 35). 1980Bank, 54 NYS2d 345 , 349; Pitcher v Sutton, 238 App Div 291, 293 , affd 264 NY 638 ) and is replaced by a requirement that the plaintiff prove the existence of a fiduciary or confidential relationship warranting the trusting party to repose his confidence in the defendant and therefore to relax the care and vigilance he would ordinarily exercise in the circumstances (Collins v Nelson, 193 Wash 334; see 37 CJS, Fraud, § 35). | 2 | 1980–1981 |
Oxbow Calcining USA Inc. v. American Industrial Partners
green
1 sentence2025Partners, 96 A.D.3d 646 , 652 (1st Dept. 2012) (holding that a stay was 654737/2024 REINVENT GOLDEN RIDGE LLC vs. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Colavito v. New York Organ Donor Network, Inc.
green
1 sentence2025"A conversion takes place when someone, intentionally and without authority, assumes or exercises control over personal property belonging to someone else, interfering with that person's right of possession" ( Colavito v New York Organ Donor Network, Inc. , 8 NY3d 43, 49-50 ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Community Board 7 v. Schaffer
green
1 sentence2024On the other hand, the doctrine of legal capacity, although similar, pertains to a litigant's authority to appear and bring their grievance before the court (Community Bd. 7, 84 NY2d at 155 , supra). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Watkins
green
1 sentence2024We have repeatedly held that "a failure to present a crucial defense supported by the evidence{**42 NY3d at 655} constitutes ineffective assistance" ( id .; see e.g. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Biggs
green
1 sentence2024In Ferrer , the defendants' officers were alleged to have isolated a 12-year-old sexual assault victim from her friends, placed her in a 26th-floor apartment, refused to allow her to call her mother, and verbally abused the victim until she agreed to press charges against her assailants ( id. ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Kendzia
green
1 sentence2024The crucial error in our dissenting colleagues’ misimpression that we are “overturn[ing] decades of precedent” (dissenting op at 1) is most clearly found in their contention that “the additional 31 days were undisputedly caused by court congestion” (id. at 2).8 The People have a duty to maintain readiness (see Kendzia, 64 NY2d at 337-338 ). 7 The dissent does not contend that Canady is not distinguishable on its facts, inasmuch as the People provided reasons there and none here. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Carlson v. Am. Int'l Grp., Inc.
green
1 sentence2020Group, Inc. , 30 NY3d 288 , 305 n 6 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Davis v Larhette , 39 AD3d at 694 ). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| DeMasi v. Dine neutral | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Mack v. Meier green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Alvarado v. Hotel Salisbury, Inc. green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| People v. Hollman green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Clarke v. Securities Industry Assn. green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Dairylea Cooperative, Inc. v. Walkley green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Bazan v. Bohne green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| People v. Santiago neutral | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| People v. Ludkowitz green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Matter of Hines v. State Board of Parole green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| People v. . Sarzano green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| People v. . Del Vermo green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| State Division of Human Rights v. Kilian Manufacturing Corp. green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| People v. Cantor green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| D'Agostino v. Watt green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Matter of Babbin v. State Tax Comm'n green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| In re Marilyn H. green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| MATTER OF CONLIN v. Aiello green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Corwin v. Farrell green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Hansberry v. Lee green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Matter of Yodakis v. . Alexander Smith Sons Carpet Co. neutral | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Johnson v. State of New York green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.