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.
8 New York opinions name it 4 courts 1964–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Esgro Capital Mgt., LLC v. Banksgreen2 sentences2026The mere fact that defendant made a single payment pursuant to a restraint on her bank account more than one year earlier "without taking some action is not, without more, a proper basis for finding waiver of the ability to seek relief under CPLR 5015 (a) (4)" ( Esgro Capital Mgt., LLC v Banks , 222 AD3d 433, 433 [2023]; see also Wilmington Sav. 2026The mere fact that defendant made a single payment pursuant to a restraint on her bank account more than one year earlier "without taking some action is not, without more, a proper basis for finding waiver of the ability to seek relief under CPLR 5015 (a) (4)" ( Esgro Capital Mgt., LLC v Banks , 222 AD3d 433, 433 [2023]; see also Wilmington Sav. | 2 | 2 |
Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v. Akitoyegreen2 sentences2026Fund Socy., FSB v Akitoye , 237 AD3d 782 , 784 [2025]). 2026Fund Socy., FSB v Akitoye , 237 AD3d 782, 784 [2025]). | 1 | 2 |
The People v. James R. Poleungreen2 sentences2025County Court's passing remark at the outset of the hearing that defendant had been "served" and did not wish to be present did not demonstrate such advisement or the basis for finding a waiver, and defense counsel did not represent that he had provided such advisements to defendant, that defendant was aware of his rights or that defendant had "expressed a desire to forego his presence at the hearing" ( People v Perez , 220 AD3d at 819 ; cf. People v Poleun , 26 NY3d 973, 974 [2015]; People v Caleb , 170 AD3d 1618 , 1618 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 910 [2019]; People v Porter , 37 AD3d 7 2025County Court's passing remark at the outset of the hearing that defendant had been "served" and did not wish to be present did not demonstrate such advisement or the basis for finding a waiver, and defense counsel did not represent that he had provided such advisements to defendant, that defendant was aware of his rights or that defendant had "expressed a desire to forego his presence at the hearing" ( People v Perez , 220 AD3d at 819; cf. People v Poleun , 26 NY3d 973, 974 [2015]; People v Caleb , 170 AD3d 1618, 1618 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 910 [2019]; People v Porter , 37 AD3d 797 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Calebgreen2 sentences2025County Court's passing remark at the outset of the hearing that defendant had been "served" and did not wish to be present did not demonstrate such advisement or the basis for finding a waiver, and defense counsel did not represent that he had provided such advisements to defendant, that defendant was aware of his rights or that defendant had "expressed a desire to forego his presence at the hearing" ( People v Perez , 220 AD3d at 819 ; cf. People v Poleun , 26 NY3d 973, 974 [2015]; People v Caleb , 170 AD3d 1618 , 1618 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 910 [2019]; People v Porter , 37 AD3d 7 2025County Court's passing remark at the outset of the hearing that defendant had been "served" and did not wish to be present did not demonstrate such advisement or the basis for finding a waiver, and defense counsel did not represent that he had provided such advisements to defendant, that defendant was aware of his rights or that defendant had "expressed a desire to forego his presence at the hearing" ( People v Perez , 220 AD3d at 819; cf. People v Poleun , 26 NY3d 973, 974 [2015]; People v Caleb , 170 AD3d 1618, 1618 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 910 [2019]; People v Porter , 37 AD3d 797 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Kiernangreen2 sentences2025No documentation of the advisement or waiver appears in the record ( cf. People v Poleun , 26 NY3d at 974-975; People v Kiernan , 232 AD3d at 916-917; People v Chang Soo Park , 187 AD3d 804 , 805 [2d Dept 2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 907 [2021]). 2025No documentation of the advisement or waiver appears in the record ( cf. People v Poleun , 26 NY3d at 974-975; People v Kiernan , 232 AD3d at 916-917; People v Chang Soo Park , 187 AD3d 804, 805 [2d Dept 2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 907 [2021]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Perezgreen2 sentences2025County Court's passing remark at the outset of the hearing that defendant had been "served" and did not wish to be present did not demonstrate such advisement or the basis for finding a waiver, and defense counsel did not represent that he had provided such advisements to defendant, that defendant was aware of his rights or that defendant had "expressed a desire to forego his presence at the hearing" ( People v Perez , 220 AD3d at 819 ; cf. People v Poleun , 26 NY3d 973, 974 [2015]; People v Caleb , 170 AD3d 1618 , 1618 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 910 [2019]; People v Porter , 37 AD3d 7 2025County Court's passing remark at the outset of the hearing that defendant had been "served" and did not wish to be present did not demonstrate such advisement or the basis for finding a waiver, and defense counsel did not represent that he had provided such advisements to defendant, that defendant was aware of his rights or that defendant had "expressed a desire to forego his presence at the hearing" ( People v Perez , 220 AD3d at 819; cf. People v Poleun , 26 NY3d 973, 974 [2015]; People v Caleb , 170 AD3d 1618, 1618 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 910 [2019]; People v Porter , 37 AD3d 797 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Chang Soo Parkgreen2 sentences2025No documentation of the advisement or waiver appears in the record ( cf. People v Poleun , 26 NY3d at 974-975; People v Kiernan , 232 AD3d at 916-917; People v Chang Soo Park , 187 AD3d 804 , 805 [2d Dept 2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 907 [2021]). 2025No documentation of the advisement or waiver appears in the record ( cf. People v Poleun , 26 NY3d at 974-975; People v Kiernan , 232 AD3d at 916-917; People v Chang Soo Park , 187 AD3d 804, 805 [2d Dept 2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 907 [2021]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Portergreen2 sentences2025County Court's passing remark at the outset of the hearing that defendant had been "served" and did not wish to be present did not demonstrate such advisement or the basis for finding a waiver, and defense counsel did not represent that he had provided such advisements to defendant, that defendant was aware of his rights or that defendant had "expressed a desire to forego his presence at the hearing" ( People v Perez , 220 AD3d at 819 ; cf. People v Poleun , 26 NY3d 973, 974 [2015]; People v Caleb , 170 AD3d 1618 , 1618 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 910 [2019]; People v Porter , 37 AD3d 7 2025County Court's passing remark at the outset of the hearing that defendant had been "served" and did not wish to be present did not demonstrate such advisement or the basis for finding a waiver, and defense counsel did not represent that he had provided such advisements to defendant, that defendant was aware of his rights or that defendant had "expressed a desire to forego his presence at the hearing" ( People v Perez , 220 AD3d at 819; cf. People v Poleun , 26 NY3d 973, 974 [2015]; People v Caleb , 170 AD3d 1618, 1618 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 910 [2019]; People v Porter , 37 AD3d 797 | 1 | 1 |
Community State Bank v. Haakonsongreen1 sentence2023The mere fact that a defendant, like defendant here, was subject to payments pursuant to a wage garnishment order for more than one year without taking some action is not, without more, a proper basis for finding waiver of the ability to seek relief under CPLR 5015(a)(4) ( see Community State Bank v Haakonson , 94 AD2d 838, 839 [3d Dept 1983]; compare Cadlerock Joint Ventures, L.P. v Mitiku , 45 AD3d 452, 453 [1st Dept 2007]). | 1 | 1 |
Calderock Joint Ventures, L.P. v. Mitikugreen1 sentence2023The mere fact that a defendant, like defendant here, was subject to payments pursuant to a wage garnishment order for more than one year without taking some action is not, without more, a proper basis for finding waiver of the ability to seek relief under CPLR 5015(a)(4) ( see Community State Bank v Haakonson , 94 AD2d 838, 839 [3d Dept 1983]; compare Cadlerock Joint Ventures, L.P. v Mitiku , 45 AD3d 452, 453 [1st Dept 2007]). | 1 | 1 |
Niesig v. Team Igreen1 sentence2007The key point is that Kleinberg revealed only unprivileged factual matters relating to the settlement and thus his deposition testimony affords no basis for the conclusion that USF & G waived the privilege (Niesig v Team I, 76 NY2d 363, 372 [1990] [attorney-client privilege “applies only to confidential communications with counsel, it does not immunize the underlying factual information . . . from disclosure to an adversary” (citations omitted)]). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Stanwood United, Inc. v. O'Connell
green
2 sentences1967While this constituted disorder, there was no proof tending to show notice of the disorder on the part of the licensee under Matter of Stanwood United v. O'Connell ( 283 App. Div. 79 , affd. 306 N.Y. 749 ). 1967While this constituted disorder, there was no proof tending to show notice of the disorder on the part of the licensee under Matter of Stanwood United v. O’Connell ( 283 App. Div. 79 , affd. 306 N. Y. 749 ). | 2 | 1967–1967 |
Stanwood United, Inc. v. O'Connell
green
2 sentences1967While this constituted disorder, there was no proof tending to show notice of the disorder on the part of the licensee under Matter of Stanwood United v. O'Connell ( 283 App. Div. 79 , affd. 306 N.Y. 749 ). 1967While this constituted disorder, there was no proof tending to show notice of the disorder on the part of the licensee under Matter of Stanwood United v. O’Connell ( 283 App. Div. 79 , affd. 306 N. Y. 749 ). | 2 | 1967–1967 |
Claim of Kolb v. Brummer
neutral
1 sentence1964(Emphasis added.) Insurance contracts have long been considered personal in nature (Matter of Kolb v. Brummer, 185 App. Div. 835 , affd. 226 N. Y. 570 ), and, absent a basis for finding waiver or estoppel, ‘ ‘ Where * * a liability policy requires the written consent of the insurer to effectuate the transfer of the insurance interest, the policy loses its force as a contract upon conveyance of the property without such consent ” (Mobilia v. Security Taxpayers Mut. | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Kolb v. Meta Brummer & New Amsterdam Casualty Co.
neutral
1 sentence1964(Emphasis added.) Insurance contracts have long been considered personal in nature (Matter of Kolb v. Brummer, 185 App. Div. 835 , affd. 226 N. Y. 570 ), and, absent a basis for finding waiver or estoppel, ‘ ‘ Where * * a liability policy requires the written consent of the insurer to effectuate the transfer of the insurance interest, the policy loses its force as a contract upon conveyance of the property without such consent ” (Mobilia v. Security Taxpayers Mut. | 1 | 1964–1964 |
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.