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 3 courts 1985–2009 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Kramergreen1 sentence1999After concluding only that the Kramer defendants had standing to challenge the numerous judicial orders obtained in those cases, we forewarned that our opinion in Bialostok had not created a per se rule that all pen registers with audio capability were equivalent to eavesdropping devices (see, id., at 541). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Guggenheimer v. Ginzburg
green
2 sentences2009The papers submitted by the Kramer defendants did not conclusively refute the material facts alleged in the complaint relating to claims of legal malpractice against them (see Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d at 274-275 ; Steve Elliot, LLC v Teplitsky, 59 AD3d at 523 ), nor did their documentary evidence conclusively establish that the plaintiff lacks a viable claim of legal malpractice against them (see CPLR 3211 [a] [1]). 2009The papers submitted by the Kramer defendants did not conclusively refute the material facts alleged in the complaint relating to claims of legal malpractice against them (see Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d at 274-275 ; Steve Elliot, LLC v Teplitsky, 59 AD3d at 523 ), nor did their documentary evidence conclusively establish that the plaintiff lacks a viable claim of legal malpractice against them (see CPLR 3211 [a] [1]). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Steve Elliot v. Teplitsky
green
2 sentences2009The papers submitted by the Kramer defendants did not conclusively refute the material facts alleged in the complaint relating to claims of legal malpractice against them (see Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d at 274-275 ; Steve Elliot, LLC v Teplitsky, 59 AD3d at 523 ), nor did their documentary evidence conclusively establish that the plaintiff lacks a viable claim of legal malpractice against them (see CPLR 3211 [a] [1]). 2009The papers submitted by the Kramer defendants did not conclusively refute the material facts alleged in the complaint relating to claims of legal malpractice against them (see Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d at 274-275 ; Steve Elliot, LLC v Teplitsky, 59 AD3d at 523 ), nor did their documentary evidence conclusively establish that the plaintiff lacks a viable claim of legal malpractice against them (see CPLR 3211 [a] [1]). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Parnes v. Bally Entertainment Corp.
green
1 sentence2005(See Pames v Bally Entertainment Corp., 722 A2d 1243 [Del Sup Ct 1999].) In Parnés, the court extended Kramer to a stock-for-stock merger, where the issue of shareholder standing was necessarily not implicated because the plaintiff was, simply put, still a shareholder. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Kramer v. Hotel Los Monteros S. A.
green
2 sentences2002In Kramer, the plaintiff received a dog bite in Spain but, “its most severe medical result, septicemia, did not manifest itself until the plaintiff * * * returned to New York” ( 57 AD2d 756 , 757 [emphasis added]). 2002In Kramer, the plaintiff received a dog bite in Spain but, “its most severe medical result, septicemia, did not manifest itself until the plaintiff * * * returned to New York” ( 57 AD2d 756 , 757 [emphasis added]). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital
green
1 sentence2001Although Dr. Kramer made an adequate prima facie showing that he had not committed malpractice, the responding affidavit of plaintiffs expert was sufficient to raise triable issues as to whether Kramer had, in fact, been negligent in his treatment of plaintiffs symptoms, ultimately, and allegedly belatedly, attributed to ovarian cancer (cf., Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 ; Burt v Lenox Hill Hosp., 141 AD2d 378 ). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Burt v. Lenox Hill Hospital
green
1 sentence2001Although Dr. Kramer made an adequate prima facie showing that he had not committed malpractice, the responding affidavit of plaintiffs expert was sufficient to raise triable issues as to whether Kramer had, in fact, been negligent in his treatment of plaintiffs symptoms, ultimately, and allegedly belatedly, attributed to ovarian cancer (cf., Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 ; Burt v Lenox Hill Hosp., 141 AD2d 378 ). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Silverstein v. Silverstein
neutral
1 sentence1992The denial of a motion for reargument is not appealable (Silverstein v Silverstein, 130 AD2d 369 ). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Gramatan Home Investors Corp. v. Lopez
green
1 sentence1985Niagara may assert the validity of the note because there is no privity between it and Exchange (Gramatan Home Investors Corp. v Lopez, 46 NY2d 481,485-487 ). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.