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 3 courts 1981–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Matter of Barons Media, LLC v. Shapiro Legal Group, PLLCgreen2 sentences2026Further, the CPLR does not bar recovery of costs related to withholding documents based on relevance or privilege ( see generally Barons Media, LLC , 231 AD3d at 640, citing 22 NYCRR 202.70, Appendix A, VIII [B] [1]). 2026Further, the CPLR does not bar recovery of costs related to withholding documents based on relevance or privilege ( see generally Barons Media, LLC , 231 AD3d at 640, citing 22 NYCRR 202.70, Appendix A, VIII [B] [1]). | 1 | 1 |
Katz v. Robinson Silverman Pearce Aronsohn & Berman, L. L. P.green1 sentence2009Even ignoring the considerable discretion conferred upon a court conducting a special proceeding to supervise the dissolution of a corporation, parties are normally permitted to chart their own procedural course before the courts (see Stevenson v News Syndicate Co., 302 NY 81, 87 [1950]; Katz v Robinson Silverman Pearce Aronsohn & Berman, 277 AD2d 70, 73 [2000]), and the courts are vested with discretion to disregard defects in form (CPLR 2101 [f]). | 1 | 1 |
Stevenson v. News Syndicate Co.green1 sentence2009Even ignoring the considerable discretion conferred upon a court conducting a special proceeding to supervise the dissolution of a corporation, parties are normally permitted to chart their own procedural course before the courts (see Stevenson v News Syndicate Co., 302 NY 81, 87 [1950]; Katz v Robinson Silverman Pearce Aronsohn & Berman, 277 AD2d 70, 73 [2000]), and the courts are vested with discretion to disregard defects in form (CPLR 2101 [f]). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Hyundai Merchant Marine Co., Ltd. Britannia Steam Ship Insurance Association, Ltd.green2 sentences2004Co., Ltd., 172 F3d 1187, 1191 [9th Cir 1999] [holding that federal Oil Pollution Act does not “restrict the recovery of the United States to costs that were prudent, or necessary, or reasonable” so long as government action was not arbitrary or capricious], cert denied 528 US 963 [1999]). 2004Co., Ltd., 172 F3d 1187, 1191 [9 th Cir 1999] [holding that federal Oil Pollution Act does not "restrict the recovery of the United States to costs that were prudent, or necessary, or reasonable" so long as government action was not arbitrary or capricious], cert denied 528 US 963 [1999]). | 1 | 1 |
Hop Wah v. Stategreen1 sentence1989Moreover, as the court in Hop Wah pointed out, if a preaction application under Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) must be brought as a special proceeding, service of process requirements for such an application (see, CPLR 403 [c]) would be more severe than for service of a claim to initiate an action against the State in the Court of Claims (see, Court of Claims Act § 11; Hop Wah v State of New York, supra, at 754). | 1 | 1 |
In re the Arbitration between Greenberggreen1 sentence1988(Matter of Greenberg [Ryder Truck Rental], 110 AD2d 585, 586 [1st Dept 1985]; see also, Matter of First Natl. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rangolan v. County of Nassau
green
2 sentences2012The Court of Appeals disagreed, noting that it would be anomalous to read that provision of the CPLR as an exception to the availability of apportion ment to “municipalities, landowners and employers, who often owe a non-delegable duty or are vicariously liable for their agents’ actions[,] [as] these are precisely the entities that article 16 was designed to protect” (Rangolan, 96 NY2d at 48 ). 2012The Court of Appeals disagreed, noting that it would be anomalous to read that provision of the CPLR as an exception to the availability of apportion ment to “municipalities, landowners and employers, who often owe a non-delegable duty or are vicariously liable for their agents’ actions[,] [as] these are precisely the entities that article 16 was designed to protect” (Rangolan, 96 NY2d at 48 ). | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Florida v. J. L.
green
2 sentences2004Co., Ltd., 172 F3d 1187, 1191 [9th Cir 1999] [holding that federal Oil Pollution Act does not “restrict the recovery of the United States to costs that were prudent, or necessary, or reasonable” so long as government action was not arbitrary or capricious], cert denied 528 US 963 [1999]). 2004Co., Ltd., 172 F3d 1187, 1191 [9 th Cir 1999] [holding that federal Oil Pollution Act does not "restrict the recovery of the United States to costs that were prudent, or necessary, or reasonable" so long as government action was not arbitrary or capricious], cert denied 528 US 963 [1999]). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Redmond v. State
neutral
2 sentences1981In an effort at clarification, the Third Department has suggested that this “so necessary” phrase must have been intended by the Legislature to be “interpreted in conformity with what the average trial attorney would regard was essential * * * for trial.” (Redmond v State of New York, 283 App Div 841, 842 .) However, even such a broad construction would present a most difficult, if not impossible, challenge to a court if followed literally. 1981In an effort at clarification, the Third Department has suggested that this “so necessary” phrase must have been intended by the Legislature to be “interpreted in conformity with what the average trial attorney would regard was essential * * * for trial.” (Redmond v State of New York, 283 App Div 841, 842 .) However, even such a broad construction would present a most difficult, if not impossible, challenge to a court if followed literally. | 1 | 1981–1981 |