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 1996–2025 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Alvarez v. Prospect Hospitalgreen2 sentences2025DISCUSSION SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD Summary judgment is a drastic remedy, to be granted only where the moving party has tendered sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact and then only if, upon the moving party's meeting of this burden, the non-moving party fails to establish the existence of material issues of fact which require a trial of the action. ( see CPLR § 3212(b); Alvarez v Prospect Hosp. , 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Vega v Restani Constr. 2025DISCUSSION SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD Summary judgment is a drastic remedy, to be granted only where the moving party has tendered sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact and then only if, upon the moving party's meeting of this burden, the non-moving party fails to establish the existence of material issues of fact which require a trial of the action. ( see CPLR § 3212(b); Alvarez v Prospect Hosp. , 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Vega v Restani Constr. | 2 | 2 |
Daulat v. Helms Bros.green2 sentences2024Also, plaintiff cannot recover under a purported harassment claim because "New York does not recognize a common-law cause of action to recover damages for harassment" ( id. , quoting Daulat v Helms Bros., Inc. , 18 AD3d 802, 803 [2005]). 2024Also, plaintiff cannot recover under a purported harassment claim because "New York does not recognize a common-law cause of action to recover damages for harassment" ( id. , quoting Daulat v Helms Bros., Inc. , 18 AD3d 802, 803 [2005]). | 2 | 2 |
Aguaiza v. Vantage Properties, LLCgreen1 sentence2024Individual defendants may be found personally liable for a harassment claim as employees or corporate officers if they are found to be "de facto owners of the corporate landlord entities or participated in tortious conduct" (Aguaiza v Vantage Props., LLC, 69 AD3d 422,424 [1st Dept 2010] [internal citations omitted]). | 1 | 1 |
Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blindgreen1 sentence2007She failed to establish a prima facie claim of retaliation, as there was no evidence of a causal connection between the filing of the harassment claim in 1998 and the denial of her appointment as a correction officer in June 2000 (see Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d 295, 313 [2004]). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Santoro v. Town of Smithtown
green
2 sentences2024Also, plaintiff cannot recover under a purported harassment claim because "New York does not recognize a common-law cause of action to recover damages for harassment" ( id. , quoting Daulat v Helms Bros., Inc. , 18 AD3d 802, 803 [2005]). 2024Also, plaintiff cannot recover under a purported harassment claim because "New York does not recognize a common-law cause of action to recover damages for harassment" ( id. , quoting Daulat v Helms Bros., Inc. , 18 AD3d 802, 803 [2005]). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Spanier v. New York City Transit Authority
green
1 sentence2006Auth., 222 AD2d 219 [1995]). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Nowlin v. LeFevre
neutral
1 sentence1996Mindful that respondent has administratively reversed that portion of the determination upon rehearing which found petitioner guilty of the harassment violation, and that the same penalty was imposed after each hearing, we need not remit for reconsideration of the penalty (cf., Matter of McRae v Leonardo, 176 AD2d 421 ; Matter of Nowlin v LeFevre, 151 AD2d 880, 882 ). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
McRae v. Leonardo
neutral
1 sentence1996Mindful that respondent has administratively reversed that portion of the determination upon rehearing which found petitioner guilty of the harassment violation, and that the same penalty was imposed after each hearing, we need not remit for reconsideration of the penalty (cf., Matter of McRae v Leonardo, 176 AD2d 421 ; Matter of Nowlin v LeFevre, 151 AD2d 880, 882 ). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.