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.
7 New York opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
32nd Avenue, LLC v. Angelo Holding Corp.green2 sentences2013Moreover, the defendants waived any defense based on Gabel Equipment’s alleged lack of standing because they failed to interpose that defense in their answer or in a timely pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint (see CPLR 3211 [e]; U.S. Bank N.A. v Denaro, 98 AD3d 964 , 964-965 [2012]; 32nd Ave., LLC v Angelo Holding Corp., 88 AD3d 986, 987 [2011]). 2013Moreover, the defendants waived any defense based on Gabel Equipment’s alleged lack of standing because they failed to interpose that defense in their answer or in a timely pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint (see CPLR 3211 [e]; U.S. Bank N.A. v Denaro, 98 AD3d 964 , 964-965 [2012]; 32nd Ave., LLC v Angelo Holding Corp., 88 AD3d 986, 987 [2011]). | 2 | 2 |
Leon v. Martinezgreen2 sentences2013Further, contrary to the defendants’ contention, accepting the facts as alleged in the complaint as true and according the corporate plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference (see CPLR 3211 [a] [7]; Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]), Gabel Equipment stated a cause of action alleging waste of corporate assets pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 720 (see Rapoport v Schneider, 29 NY2d at 400 ). 2013Further, contrary to the defendants’ contention, accepting the facts as alleged in the complaint as true and according the corporate plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference (see CPLR 3211 [a] [7]; Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]), Gabel Equipment stated a cause of action alleging waste of corporate assets pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 720 (see Rapoport v Schneider, 29 NY2d at 400 ). | 2 | 2 |
Bank of America, National Ass'n v. Brannongreen2 sentences2025NO. 68 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/30/2025 Mtge. , LLC v Vorderme ier, 165 AD3d 822 , 822-823 [2018]; Bank of Am. , NA. v Brannon, 156 AD3d 1, 7 [2017]; 1199 Haus. 2019The defendants waived any defense based on the plaintiff's alleged failure to comply with a condition precedent of the consolidated mortgage since they did not raise this defense with specificity in their answer or in any motion to amend their answer ( see CPLR 3015[a]; Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Vordermeier , 165 AD3d 822 , 822-823; Bank of Am., N.A. v Brannon , 156 AD3d 1, 7 ; 1199 Hous. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. Denaro
green
2 sentences2013Moreover, the defendants waived any defense based on Gabel Equipment’s alleged lack of standing because they failed to interpose that defense in their answer or in a timely pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint (see CPLR 3211 [e]; U.S. Bank N.A. v Denaro, 98 AD3d 964 , 964-965 [2012]; 32nd Ave., LLC v Angelo Holding Corp., 88 AD3d 986, 987 [2011]). 2013Moreover, the defendants waived any defense based on Gabel Equipment’s alleged lack of standing because they failed to interpose that defense in their answer or in a timely pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint (see CPLR 3211 [e]; U.S. Bank N.A. v Denaro, 98 AD3d 964 , 964-965 [2012]; 32nd Ave., LLC v Angelo Holding Corp., 88 AD3d 986, 987 [2011]). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Rapoport v. Schneider
green
2 sentences2013Further, contrary to the defendants’ contention, accepting the facts as alleged in the complaint as true and according the corporate plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference (see CPLR 3211 [a] [7]; Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]), Gabel Equipment stated a cause of action alleging waste of corporate assets pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 720 (see Rapoport v Schneider, 29 NY2d at 400 ). 2013Further, contrary to the defendants’ contention, accepting the facts as alleged in the complaint as true and according the corporate plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference (see CPLR 3211 [a] [7]; Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]), Gabel Equipment stated a cause of action alleging waste of corporate assets pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 720 (see Rapoport v Schneider, 29 NY2d at 400 ). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Wentworth
neutral
1 sentence2026Trust Co. v Wentworth , 211 AD3d 684, 687 ). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Soufer v. Baroukhian
neutral
1 sentence2025In any event, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the action was untimely ( see CPLR 213[2]; 214[2]; Soufer v Baroukhian , 182 AD3d 624, 626 ) or otherwise establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law ( see CPLR 3212). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Jakobleff v. Cerrato, Sweeney & Cohn
green
1 sentence2002Ins. v Wade’s Canadian Inn & Cocktail Lounge, 225 AD2d 863, 864 ; Jakobleff v Cerrato, Sweeney & Cohn, 97 AD2d 834, 835 ; Erljur Assoc. v Weissman, 134 AD2d at 322 ). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Erljur Associates v. Weissman
neutral
1 sentence2002Ins. v Wade’s Canadian Inn & Cocktail Lounge, 225 AD2d 863, 864 ; Jakobleff v Cerrato, Sweeney & Cohn, 97 AD2d 834, 835 ; Erljur Assoc. v Weissman, 134 AD2d at 322 ). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
New York TRW Title Insurance v. Wade's Canadian Inn & Cocktail Lounge, Inc.
green
1 sentence2002Ins. v Wade’s Canadian Inn & Cocktail Lounge, 225 AD2d 863, 864 ; Jakobleff v Cerrato, Sweeney & Cohn, 97 AD2d 834, 835 ; Erljur Assoc. v Weissman, 134 AD2d at 322 ). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.