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 1978–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v. Gonzalesgreen2 sentences2025The plaintiff appeals. "[A] court's power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal" ( Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v Gonzales , 215 AD3d 636, 638 [internal quotation marks omitted]). 2025Nevertheless, the Supreme Court properly granted Liverpool's motion pursuant to CPLR 6514 to cancel the 2020 notice of pendency, as the plaintiff was without authority to file a "renewal notice of pendency" where, as here, the court directed dismissal of the complaint ( see id. ; Freidus v Sardelli , 192 AD2d 578, 580 ). | 1 | 1 |
Ramcharan v. Parisergreen1 sentence2014Unlike the cases relied upon by the Lamonsoff defendants (see Katz v Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C., 48 AD3d 640, 641 [2008]; Ramcharan v Pariser, 20 AD3d 556, 557 [2005]; Perks v Lauto & Garabedian, 306 AD2d 261 [2003]; Albin v Pearson, 289 AD2d 272 [2001]; Golden v Cascione, Chechanover & Purcigliotti, 286 AD2d 281, 281 [2001]; Kozmol v Law Firm of Allen L. | 1 | 1 |
Katz v. Rubingreen1 sentence2014Unlike the cases relied upon by the Lamonsoff defendants (see Katz v Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C., 48 AD3d 640, 641 [2008]; Ramcharan v Pariser, 20 AD3d 556, 557 [2005]; Perks v Lauto & Garabedian, 306 AD2d 261 [2003]; Albin v Pearson, 289 AD2d 272 [2001]; Golden v Cascione, Chechanover & Purcigliotti, 286 AD2d 281, 281 [2001]; Kozmol v Law Firm of Allen L. | 1 | 1 |
Golden v. Cascionegreen1 sentence2014Unlike the cases relied upon by the Lamonsoff defendants (see Katz v Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C., 48 AD3d 640, 641 [2008]; Ramcharan v Pariser, 20 AD3d 556, 557 [2005]; Perks v Lauto & Garabedian, 306 AD2d 261 [2003]; Albin v Pearson, 289 AD2d 272 [2001]; Golden v Cascione, Chechanover & Purcigliotti, 286 AD2d 281, 281 [2001]; Kozmol v Law Firm of Allen L. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Freidus v. Sardelli
green
1 sentence2025Nevertheless, the Supreme Court properly granted Liverpool's motion pursuant to CPLR 6514 to cancel the 2020 notice of pendency, as the plaintiff was without authority to file a "renewal notice of pendency" where, as here, the court directed dismissal of the complaint ( see id. ; Freidus v Sardelli , 192 AD2d 578, 580 ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Kozmol v. Law Firm of Rothenberg
green
1 sentence2014Rothenberg, 241 AD2d 484 [1997]), here, the Liverpool defendants could not have moved as of right to remedy the defects in service alleged. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Lanoce v. Anderson, Banks, Curran & Donoghue
green
1 sentence2014The Supreme Court would have had to exercise its discretion in the underlying action to extend the time to serve process (see CPLR 306-b, CPLR 2004), and it is pure speculation as to whether the court would have permitted such late service (see generally Glamm v Allen, 57 NY2d 87 [1982]; Lanoce v Anderson, Banks, Curran & Donoghue, 259 AD2d 965 [1999]). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Albin v. Pearson
green
1 sentence2014Unlike the cases relied upon by the Lamonsoff defendants (see Katz v Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C., 48 AD3d 640, 641 [2008]; Ramcharan v Pariser, 20 AD3d 556, 557 [2005]; Perks v Lauto & Garabedian, 306 AD2d 261 [2003]; Albin v Pearson, 289 AD2d 272 [2001]; Golden v Cascione, Chechanover & Purcigliotti, 286 AD2d 281, 281 [2001]; Kozmol v Law Firm of Allen L. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Perks v. Lauto & Garabedian
green
1 sentence2014Unlike the cases relied upon by the Lamonsoff defendants (see Katz v Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C., 48 AD3d 640, 641 [2008]; Ramcharan v Pariser, 20 AD3d 556, 557 [2005]; Perks v Lauto & Garabedian, 306 AD2d 261 [2003]; Albin v Pearson, 289 AD2d 272 [2001]; Golden v Cascione, Chechanover & Purcigliotti, 286 AD2d 281, 281 [2001]; Kozmol v Law Firm of Allen L. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Glamm v. Allen
green
1 sentence2014The Supreme Court would have had to exercise its discretion in the underlying action to extend the time to serve process (see CPLR 306-b, CPLR 2004), and it is pure speculation as to whether the court would have permitted such late service (see generally Glamm v Allen, 57 NY2d 87 [1982]; Lanoce v Anderson, Banks, Curran & Donoghue, 259 AD2d 965 [1999]). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
In Re the Arbitration Between Board of Education of Watertown City School District & Watertown Education Ass'n
green
2 sentences2002Pursuant to the second step of the Liverpool test, the court must determine “whether the parties agreed to arbitrate the grievance” (Board of Educ. of Watertown City School Dist., 93 NY2d at 140 ). 2002Pursuant to the second step of the Liverpool test, the court must determine “whether the parties agreed to arbitrate the grievance” (Board of Educ. of Watertown City School Dist., 93 NY2d at 140 ). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
MATTER OF BD. OF EDUC. OF THE WATERTOWN CITY SCH. DIST. v. Watertown Educ. Ass'n
green
2 sentences1999Assn., 74 NY2d 912, 913 ; see generally, Siegel, New York Practice § 589, at 945 [2d ed]). 1999Assn., 74 NY2d 912, 913 ; see generally, Siegel, New York Practice § 589, at 945 [2d ed]). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Agesen v. Catherwood
green
2 sentences1979Whether the Port Authority’s employment is public and subject to the Taylor Law or private (but, see, Matter of Agesen v Catherwood, 26 NY2d 521 ), we find the agreement here meets the Liverpool standard. 1979Whether the Port Authority’s employment is public and subject to the Taylor Law or private (but, see, Matter of Agesen v Catherwood, 26 NY2d 521 ), we find the agreement here meets the Liverpool standard. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
In re the Arbitration between Candor Central School District & Candor Teachers Ass'n
green
1 sentence1979School Dist. [Candor Teachers Assn.], 42 NY2d 266 ). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
In re the Arbitration between the Acting Superintendent of Schools of Liverpool Central School District v. United Liverpool Faculty Ass'n
green
2 sentences1978School Dist. [United Liverpool Faculty Assn.] 42 NY2d 509, 513 , supra). 1978School Dist. [United Liverpool Faculty Assn.] 42 NY2d 509, 513 , supra). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.