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.
9 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1869–2023 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kelly v. Safirgreen2 sentences2023As for petitioner's further challenge to the penalty imposed of revocation, "[a]n administrative penalty must be upheld unless it is so disproportionate to the offense, in the light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness, thus constituting an abuse of discretion as a matter of law" ( Matter of Lewis v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs. , 114 AD3d 1065 , 1067 [*4][3d Dept 2014] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Kelly v Safir , 96 NY2d 32, 38 [2001]; Matter of Patel v New York State Educ. 2023As for petitioner's further challenge to the penalty imposed of revocation, "[a]n administrative penalty must be upheld unless it is so disproportionate to the offense, in the light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness, thus constituting an abuse of discretion as a matter of law" ( Matter of Lewis v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs. , 114 AD3d 1065 , 1067 [*4][3d Dept 2014] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Kelly v Safir , 96 NY2d 32, 38 [2001]; Matter of Patel v New York State Educ. | 2 | 2 |
Welch v. Hauckgreen2 sentences2013The plaintiffs had already submitted all of the pleadings in support of their own motion, and the Stop & Shop defendants expressly incorporated the exhibits already submitted by the plaintiffs into their cross motion (see Daramboukas v Samlidis, 84 AD3d 719, 721 [2011]; Carlson v Town of Mina, 31 AD3d 1176, 1177 [2006]; cf. Welch v Hauck, 18 AD3d 1096, 1098 [2005]; Gallagher v TDS Telecom, 280 AD2d 991, 991 [2001]). 2013The plaintiffs had already submitted all of the pleadings in support of their own motion, and the Stop & Shop defendants expressly incorporated the exhibits already submitted by the plaintiffs into their cross motion (see Daramboukas v Samlidis, 84 AD3d 719, 721 [2011]; Carlson v Town of Mina, 31 AD3d 1176, 1177 [2006]; cf. Welch v Hauck, 18 AD3d 1096, 1098 [2005]; Gallagher v TDS Telecom, 280 AD2d 991, 991 [2001]). | 2 | 2 |
Carlson v. Town of Mina & Suit-Kote Corp.green2 sentences2013The plaintiffs had already submitted all of the pleadings in support of their own motion, and the Stop & Shop defendants expressly incorporated the exhibits already submitted by the plaintiffs into their cross motion (see Daramboukas v Samlidis, 84 AD3d 719, 721 [2011]; Carlson v Town of Mina, 31 AD3d 1176, 1177 [2006]; cf. Welch v Hauck, 18 AD3d 1096, 1098 [2005]; Gallagher v TDS Telecom, 280 AD2d 991, 991 [2001]). 2013The plaintiffs had already submitted all of the pleadings in support of their own motion, and the Stop & Shop defendants expressly incorporated the exhibits already submitted by the plaintiffs into their cross motion (see Daramboukas v Samlidis, 84 AD3d 719, 721 [2011]; Carlson v Town of Mina, 31 AD3d 1176, 1177 [2006]; cf. Welch v Hauck, 18 AD3d 1096, 1098 [2005]; Gallagher v TDS Telecom, 280 AD2d 991, 991 [2001]). | 2 | 2 |
Daramboukas v. Samlidisgreen2 sentences2013The plaintiffs had already submitted all of the pleadings in support of their own motion, and the Stop & Shop defendants expressly incorporated the exhibits already submitted by the plaintiffs into their cross motion (see Daramboukas v Samlidis, 84 AD3d 719, 721 [2011]; Carlson v Town of Mina, 31 AD3d 1176, 1177 [2006]; cf. Welch v Hauck, 18 AD3d 1096, 1098 [2005]; Gallagher v TDS Telecom, 280 AD2d 991, 991 [2001]). 2013The plaintiffs had already submitted all of the pleadings in support of their own motion, and the Stop & Shop defendants expressly incorporated the exhibits already submitted by the plaintiffs into their cross motion (see Daramboukas v Samlidis, 84 AD3d 719, 721 [2011]; Carlson v Town of Mina, 31 AD3d 1176, 1177 [2006]; cf. Welch v Hauck, 18 AD3d 1096, 1098 [2005]; Gallagher v TDS Telecom, 280 AD2d 991, 991 [2001]). | 2 | 2 |
Eversfield v. Brush Hollow Realty, LLCgreen2 sentences2013Assoc., 98 AD3d at 1093-1094; Rodriguez v BCRE 230 Riverdale, LLC, 91 AD3d 933, 935 [2012]; Eversfield v Brush Hollow Realty, LLC, 91 AD3d 814, 816 [2012]). 2013Assoc., 98 AD3d at 1093-1094; Rodriguez v BCRE 230 Riverdale, LLC, 91 AD3d 933, 935 [2012]; Eversfield v Brush Hollow Realty, LLC, 91 AD3d 814, 816 [2012]). | 2 | 2 |
Rodriguez v. BCRE 230 Riverdale, LLCgreen2 sentences2013Assoc., 98 AD3d at 1093-1094; Rodriguez v BCRE 230 Riverdale, LLC, 91 AD3d 933, 935 [2012]; Eversfield v Brush Hollow Realty, LLC, 91 AD3d 814, 816 [2012]). 2013Assoc., 98 AD3d at 1093-1094; Rodriguez v BCRE 230 Riverdale, LLC, 91 AD3d 933, 935 [2012]; Eversfield v Brush Hollow Realty, LLC, 91 AD3d 814, 816 [2012]). | 2 | 2 |
McLean v. 405 Webster Avenue Associatesgreen2 sentences2013Assoc., 98 AD3d at 1093-1094; Rodriguez v BCRE 230 Riverdale, LLC, 91 AD3d 933, 935 [2012]; Eversfield v Brush Hollow Realty, LLC, 91 AD3d 814, 816 [2012]). 2013Assoc., 98 AD3d at 1093-1094; Rodriguez v BCRE 230 Riverdale, LLC, 91 AD3d 933, 935 [2012]; Eversfield v Brush Hollow Realty, LLC, 91 AD3d 814, 816 [2012]). | 2 | 2 |
Gallagher v. TDS Telecomgreen2 sentences2013The plaintiffs had already submitted all of the pleadings in support of their own motion, and the Stop & Shop defendants expressly incorporated the exhibits already submitted by the plaintiffs into their cross motion (see Daramboukas v Samlidis, 84 AD3d 719, 721 [2011]; Carlson v Town of Mina, 31 AD3d 1176, 1177 [2006]; cf. Welch v Hauck, 18 AD3d 1096, 1098 [2005]; Gallagher v TDS Telecom, 280 AD2d 991, 991 [2001]). 2013The plaintiffs had already submitted all of the pleadings in support of their own motion, and the Stop & Shop defendants expressly incorporated the exhibits already submitted by the plaintiffs into their cross motion (see Daramboukas v Samlidis, 84 AD3d 719, 721 [2011]; Carlson v Town of Mina, 31 AD3d 1176, 1177 [2006]; cf. Welch v Hauck, 18 AD3d 1096, 1098 [2005]; Gallagher v TDS Telecom, 280 AD2d 991, 991 [2001]). | 2 | 2 |
Foley v. D'Agostinogreen1 sentence2011When a party moves to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the standard is whether the pleading states a cause of action (see Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 275 [1977]; Foley v D’Agostino, 21 AD2d 60, 64-65 [1964]). | 1 | 1 |
Elow v. Svenningsengreen1 sentence2011“A party seeking to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) on the ground that its defense is based on documentary evidence must submit documentary evidence that resolves all factual issues as a matter of law and conclusively disposes of the plaintiff’s claim” (Elow v Svenningsen, 58 AD3d 674, 675 [2009]; see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 88 [1994]). | 1 | 1 |
Leon v. Martinezgreen1 sentence2011“A party seeking to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) on the ground that its defense is based on documentary evidence must submit documentary evidence that resolves all factual issues as a matter of law and conclusively disposes of the plaintiff’s claim” (Elow v Svenningsen, 58 AD3d 674, 675 [2009]; see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 88 [1994]). | 1 | 1 |
Guggenheimer v. Ginzburggreen1 sentence2011When a party moves to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the standard is whether the pleading states a cause of action (see Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 275 [1977]; Foley v D’Agostino, 21 AD2d 60, 64-65 [1964]). | 1 | 1 |
Halperin v. City of New Rochellegreen1 sentence2008The Planning Board is not acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity (see Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374 , 384 n 2 [1995]; Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle, 24 AD3d 768, 770 [2005]). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lewis v. New York State Office of Children & Family Services
green
2 sentences2023As for petitioner's further challenge to the penalty imposed of revocation, "[a]n administrative penalty must be upheld unless it is so disproportionate to the offense, in the light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness, thus constituting an abuse of discretion as a matter of law" ( Matter of Lewis v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs. , 114 AD3d 1065 , 1067 [*4][3d Dept 2014] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Kelly v Safir , 96 NY2d 32, 38 [2001]; Matter of Patel v New York State Educ. 2023As for petitioner's further challenge to the penalty imposed of revocation, "[a]n administrative penalty must be upheld unless it is so disproportionate to the offense, in the light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness, thus constituting an abuse of discretion as a matter of law" ( Matter of Lewis v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs. , 114 AD3d 1065 , 1067 [*4][3d Dept 2014] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Kelly v Safir , 96 NY2d 32, 38 [2001]; Matter of Patel v New York State Educ. | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Millman v. Citibank, N.A.
green
1 sentence2022"As a general rule, liability for a dangerous condition on property is predicated upon ownership, occupancy, control, or special use of the property" ( Millman v Citibank , 216 AD2d 278, 278 ; see Guzman v Jamaica Hosp. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
MATTER OF SASSO v. Osgood
green
1 sentence2008The Planning Board is not acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity (see Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374 , 384 n 2 [1995]; Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle, 24 AD3d 768, 770 [2005]). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Vosburgh v. Thayer
neutral
1 sentence1935It is provided in section 374-a of the Civil Practice Act (Laws of 1928, chap. 532) that “ All other circumstances of the making of such writing or record, including lack of personal knowledge by the entrant or maker, may be shown to affect its weight, but shall not affect its admissibility.” By statute the old shop rule of Vosburgh v. Thayer ( 12 Johns. 461 ) has given way .to less stringent requirements. | 1 | 1935–1935 |
Benedict v. Hart
neutral
1 sentence1869(Benedict v. Hart, 1 Cush., 487 .) The constructive possession follows the legal title, or title deeds, and does not attach to one who is out of possession, and without title. | 1 | 1869–1869 |
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.