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 2 courts 1992–2015 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rhodes v. Herzgreen2 sentences2013Legislative intent is thus the linchpin in any case where a private right of action is to be implied.” (Rhodes at 9 [citation omitted].) These three factors are commonly known as the Sheehy test. 2013Legislative intent is thus the linchpin in any case where a private right of action is to be implied.” (Rhodes at 9 [citation omitted].) These three factors are commonly known as the Sheehy test. | 1 | 1 |
Brian Hoxie's Painting Co. v. Cato-Meridian Central School Districtgreen2 sentences2012School Dist., 76 NY2d 207, 212 [1990]). 2012School Dist., 76 NY2d 207, 212 [1990]). | 1 | 1 |
Sheehy v. Big Flats Community Day, Inc.green2 sentences2002Next, while the two patients are part of the class for whose particular benefit the statute was enacted, their claims fail the second and third prongs of the Sheehy analysis (see, Sheehy v Big Flats Community Day, supra at 633). 2002Next, while the two patients are part of the class for whose particular benefit the statute was enacted, their claims fail the second and third prongs of the Sheehy analysis (see, Sheehy v Big Flats Community Day, supra at 633). | 1 | 1 |
Burns Jackson Miller Summit & Spitzer v. Lindnergreen2 sentences2002Even where the recognition of a private cause of action might arguably promote one aspect of a statute’s legislative goals, the greater concern is the “ ‘consistency of doing so with the purposes underlying the legislative scheme’ ” (id. at 634, quoting Burns Jackson Miller Summit & Spitzer v Lindner, 59 NY2d 314, 325 [emphasis in original]; see, Uhr v East Greenbush Cent. 2002Even where the recognition of a private cause of action might arguably promote one aspect of a statute’s legislative goals, the greater concern is the “ ‘consistency of doing so with the purposes underlying the legislative scheme’ ” (id. at 634, quoting Burns Jackson Miller Summit & Spitzer v Lindner, 59 NY2d 314, 325 [emphasis in original]; see, Uhr v East Greenbush Cent. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Tracy v. . Talmage
green
1 sentence2015Moreover, the plaintiff is not in pari delicto with defendant since plaintiff can rely upon the affirmative representation set forth in the various leases that defendant had “due power and authority” to rent the premises and, as noted above, the obligations regarding the application for, payment of, and renewal of the rental permit solely rests on the landlord (see generally Tracy v Talmage, 14 NY 162 [1856]). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Mark G. v. Sabol
green
2 sentences2013The third of the Sheehy factors is considered to be the “most critical” (Mark G., 93 NY2d at 720 ) and provides that a court must determine “whether creation of such a right would be consistent with the legislative scheme.” In analyzing the legislative scheme, the Cruz court begins with a discussion of article 52’s enforcement mechanisms. 2013The third of the Sheehy factors is considered to be the “most critical” (Mark G., 93 NY2d at 720 ) and provides that a court must determine “whether creation of such a right would be consistent with the legislative scheme.” In analyzing the legislative scheme, the Cruz court begins with a discussion of article 52’s enforcement mechanisms. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Uhr v. East Greenbush Central School District
green
2 sentences2010The Uhr Court found that allowing an implied private right of action regarding a statute, which requires school authorities to examine students of certain ages for scoliosis at least once in a school year, would be inconsistent with the legislative scheme because the Legislature clearly contemplated administrative enforcement of the statute by charging the Commissioner of Education with the duty to enforce the statute. {Uhr, 94 NY2d at 33 .) Here, the court has little doubt that plaintiff can satisfy the first and second prongs of the Sheehy test, as Judge Baer concluded in Masters . 2010The Uhr Court found that allowing an implied private right of action regarding a statute, which requires school authorities to examine students of certain ages for scoliosis at least once in a school year, would be inconsistent with the legislative scheme because the Legislature clearly contemplated administrative enforcement of the statute by charging the Commissioner of Education with the duty to enforce the statute. {Uhr, 94 NY2d at 33 .) Here, the court has little doubt that plaintiff can satisfy the first and second prongs of the Sheehy test, as Judge Baer concluded in Masters . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
People v. Reinoso
neutral
2 sentences2008The plaintiffs allegations that Creative breached its duty to pay commissions earned under the parties’ oral and written agreements, 1 prior to Creative’s termination of the parties’ relationship, are sufficient to state a cause of action under Labor Law § 191-b (cf. Phil Kriegel Assoc. v Lahm Knitting Mill, 179 AD2d 539 [1992]). 2008The plaintiffs allegations that Creative breached its duty to pay commissions earned under the parties’ oral and written agreements, 1 prior to Creative’s termination of the parties’ relationship, are sufficient to state a cause of action under Labor Law § 191-b (cf. Phil Kriegel Assoc. v Lahm Knitting Mill, 179 AD2d 539 [1992]). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Danahy v. Meese
green
2 sentences2000Notably, there is no independent tort in New York for civil conspiracy (see, Baker v Vanderbilt Co., 260 AD2d 750, 752-753 ; Danahy v Meese, 84 AD2d 670, 672 ), and an attempt to commit a crime or tort is analogous to a conspiracy to undertake such conduct. 2000Notably, there is no independent tort in New York for civil conspiracy (see, Baker v Vanderbilt Co., 260 AD2d 750, 752-753 ; Danahy v Meese, 84 AD2d 670, 672 ), and an attempt to commit a crime or tort is analogous to a conspiracy to undertake such conduct. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Baker v. R.T. Vanderbilt Co.
green
2 sentences2000Notably, there is no independent tort in New York for civil conspiracy (see, Baker v Vanderbilt Co., 260 AD2d 750, 752-753 ; Danahy v Meese, 84 AD2d 670, 672 ), and an attempt to commit a crime or tort is analogous to a conspiracy to undertake such conduct. 2000Notably, there is no independent tort in New York for civil conspiracy (see, Baker v Vanderbilt Co., 260 AD2d 750, 752-753 ; Danahy v Meese, 84 AD2d 670, 672 ), and an attempt to commit a crime or tort is analogous to a conspiracy to undertake such conduct. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Nolley v. County of Erie
green
2 sentences1992Utilizing the Sheehy analysis, at least one New York State court has recognized a private right of action exists under Public Health Law article 27-F (see, Matter of V. v State of New York, 150 Misc 2d 156 ; cited with approval in Nolley v County of Erie, 776 F Supp 715 [WD NY 1991]). 1992Utilizing the Sheehy analysis, at least one New York State court has recognized a private right of action exists under Public Health Law article 27-F (see, Matter of V. v State of New York, 150 Misc 2d 156 ; cited with approval in Nolley v County of Erie, 776 F Supp 715 [WD NY 1991]). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
V. v. State
green
2 sentences1992Utilizing the Sheehy analysis, at least one New York State court has recognized a private right of action exists under Public Health Law article 27-F (see, Matter of V. v State of New York, 150 Misc 2d 156 ; cited with approval in Nolley v County of Erie, 776 F Supp 715 [WD NY 1991]). 1992Utilizing the Sheehy analysis, at least one New York State court has recognized a private right of action exists under Public Health Law article 27-F (see, Matter of V. v State of New York, 150 Misc 2d 156 ; cited with approval in Nolley v County of Erie, 776 F Supp 715 [WD NY 1991]). | 1 | 1992–1992 |