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 1 courts 2008–2021 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sommer v. Federal Signal Corp.green2 sentences2016We also hold that, under the highly deferential standard afforded to pleadings, the particular facts alleged in the amended complaint are sufficient to support plaintiff’s claim of gross negligence, which should not have been dismissed (Sommer v Federal Signal Corp., 79 NY2d 540, 554 [1992]). 2016We also hold that, under the highly deferential standard afforded to pleadings, the particular facts alleged in the amended complaint are sufficient to support plaintiff's claim of gross negligence, which should not have been dismissed ( Sommer v Federal Signal Corp. , 79 NY2d 540, 554 [1992]). | 2 | 2 |
Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Suttergreen1 sentence2018Thus, "an arbitral decision even arguably construing or applying the [procedural record] must stand, regardless of a court's view of its (de)merits" ( Oxford Health Plans , 569 US at 569 [internal quotation marks omitted]). | 1 | 1 |
Lucas v. Novellogreen1 sentence2010In light of the nature of petitioner’s misconduct, his prior disciplinary record and his failure after the prior misconduct to take appropriate corrective steps, we are unpersuaded that the penalty is inappropriate under the applicable highly deferential standard of review (see Matter of Ostad v New York State Dept. of Health, 40 AD3d 1251, 1253 [2007]; Matter of Lucas v Novello, 296 AD2d 735, 735-736 [2002]). | 1 | 1 |
Ostad v. New York State Department of Healthgreen1 sentence2010In light of the nature of petitioner’s misconduct, his prior disciplinary record and his failure after the prior misconduct to take appropriate corrective steps, we are unpersuaded that the penalty is inappropriate under the applicable highly deferential standard of review (see Matter of Ostad v New York State Dept. of Health, 40 AD3d 1251, 1253 [2007]; Matter of Lucas v Novello, 296 AD2d 735, 735-736 [2002]). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Coffey v. CRP/Extell Parcel I, L.P.
neutral
2 sentences2021We reject plaintiff's contention that he was not afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate before HHS because appellate review was limited to an arbitrary and capricious standard rather than a full review on the merits ( see Johnson v New York City Dept. of Educ. , 2011 WL 13300034 , *3, 2011 US Dist LEXIS 172308 *10-11 [ED NY Apr. 22, 2011, No. 08-CV-5260 (ENV)(LB)]).Indeed, New York courts give preclusive effect to agency determinations confirmed in CPLR article 78 proceedings employing the same highly deferential standard ( see CPLR 7803[3]; Coffey v CRP/Extell Parcel I, L.P. , 117 A 2021We reject plaintiff's contention that he was not afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate before HHS because appellate review was limited to an arbitrary and capricious standard rather than a full review on the merits ( see Johnson v New York City Dept. of Educ. , 2011 WL 13300034 , *3, 2011 US Dist LEXIS 172308 *10-11 [ED NY Apr. 22, 2011, No. 08-CV-5260 (ENV)(LB)]).Indeed, New York courts give preclusive effect to agency determinations confirmed in CPLR article 78 proceedings employing the same highly deferential standard ( see CPLR 7803[3]; Coffey v CRP/Extell Parcel I, L.P. , 117 A | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Coffey v. CRP/Extell Parcel I, L.P.
neutral
2 sentences2021We reject plaintiff's contention that he was not afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate before HHS because appellate review was limited to an arbitrary and capricious standard rather than a full review on the merits ( see Johnson v New York City Dept. of Educ. , 2011 WL 13300034 , *3, 2011 US Dist LEXIS 172308 *10-11 [ED NY Apr. 22, 2011, No. 08-CV-5260 (ENV)(LB)]).Indeed, New York courts give preclusive effect to agency determinations confirmed in CPLR article 78 proceedings employing the same highly deferential standard ( see CPLR 7803[3]; Coffey v CRP/Extell Parcel I, L.P. , 117 A 2021We reject plaintiff's contention that he was not afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate before HHS because appellate review was limited to an arbitrary and capricious standard rather than a full review on the merits ( see Johnson v New York City Dept. of Educ. , 2011 WL 13300034 , *3, 2011 US Dist LEXIS 172308 *10-11 [ED NY Apr. 22, 2011, No. 08-CV-5260 (ENV)(LB)]).Indeed, New York courts give preclusive effect to agency determinations confirmed in CPLR article 78 proceedings employing the same highly deferential standard ( see CPLR 7803[3]; Coffey v CRP/Extell Parcel I, L.P. , 117 A | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Cove v. Sise
green
1 sentence2008Constrained by the highly deferential standard of review that we must accord to the Division’s determinations (see Cove v Sise, 71 NY2d at 912 ; Matter of Civil Serv. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.