49 New York opinions name it 8 courts 1904–2026 8 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 |
|---|---|---|
Craig-Oriol v. Mount Sinai Hospitalgreen2 sentences2017Pursuant to the election of remedies doctrine, the filing of a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights (hereinafter the Division) precludes the commencement of an action in the Supreme Court asserting the same discriminatory acts (see Executive Law § 297 [9]; Wrenn v Verizon, 106 AD3d 995, 995-996 [2013]; Ehrlich v Kantor, 213 AD2d 447 [1995]; Craig-Oriol v Mount Sinai Hosp., 201 AD2d 449, 450 [1994]). 2016The filing of a complaint with the Division precludes the commencement of an action in the Supreme Court asserting the same discriminatory acts (see Wrenn v Verizon, 106 AD3d at 995-996 ; Ehrlich v Kantor, 213 AD2d 447, 447 [1995]; Craig-Oriol v Mount Sinai Hosp., 201 AD2d 449, 450 [1994]). *882 Here, the petitioner is barred from maintaining this CPLR article 78 proceeding by the election of remedies doctrine because the instant claims are based on the same allegedly discriminatory conduct asserted in the petitioner’s complaint filed with the Division (see Executive Law § 297 [9]; Matter of J | 4 | 4 |
Benjamin v. New York City Department of Healthgreen2 sentences2013The plaintiff is barred from maintaining this action by the election of remedies doctrine because the instant claims are based on the same allegedly discriminatory conduct asserted in the Division of Human Rights proceedings (see Executive Law § 297 [9]; Benjamin v New York City Dept. of Health, 57 AD3d 403, 404 [2008]; Craig-Oriol v Mount Sinai Hosp., 201 AD2d 449, 449-450 [1994]). 2013The plaintiff is barred from maintaining this action by the election of remedies doctrine because the instant claims are based on the same allegedly discriminatory conduct asserted in the Division of Human Rights proceedings (see Executive Law § 297 [9]; Benjamin v New York City Dept. of Health, 57 AD3d 403, 404 [2008]; Craig-Oriol v Mount Sinai Hosp., 201 AD2d 449, 449-450 [1994]). | 2 | 4 |
Wrenn v. Verizongreen2 sentences2017The election of remedies doctrine and the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law do not implicate the subject matter jurisdiction of the *1171 court, but rather deprive a plaintiff of a cause of action (see Executive Law § 297 [9]; Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11, 29 [6]; Wrenn v Verizon, 106 AD3d 995 [2013]; Hirsch v Morgan Stanley & Co., 239 AD2d 466 [1997]; see generally Lacks v Lacks, 41 NY2d 71 , 74-75 [1976]). 2017Pursuant to the election of remedies doctrine, the filing of a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights (hereinafter the Division) precludes the commencement of an action in the Supreme Court asserting the same discriminatory acts (see Executive Law § 297 [9]; Wrenn v Verizon, 106 AD3d 995, 995-996 [2013]; Ehrlich v Kantor, 213 AD2d 447 [1995]; Craig-Oriol v Mount Sinai Hosp., 201 AD2d 449, 450 [1994]). | 2 | 3 |
City of Syracuse v. Fitch Street Properties, LLCgreen2 sentences2014Props., LLC, 71 AD3d 1388, 1389 [2010]). 2014Props., LLC, 71 AD3d 1388, 1389 [2010]). | 2 | 3 |
Rebecca Broadway Ltd. Partnership v. Hottongreen2 sentences2022Under this doctrine, when one party breaches a bilateral contract, the other party "must make an election between declaring a breach and terminating the contract or, alternatively, ignoring the breach and continuing to perform under the contract" ( Rebecca Broadway L.P. v Hotton , 143 AD3d 71, 80-81 [1st Dept 2016]). 2022Under this doctrine, when one party breaches a bilateral contract, the other party "must make an election between declaring a breach and terminating the contract or, alternatively, ignoring the breach and continuing to perform under the contract" ( Rebecca Broadway L.P. v Hotton , 143 AD3d 71, 80-81 [1st Dept 2016]). | 2 | 2 |
Prudential Oil Corp. v. Phillips Petroleum Co.green2 sentences2015“Under New York law, for an election of remedies to bar the pursuit of alternative relief, legal and equitable, a party must have chosen one of two or more co-existing inconsistent remedies, and in reliance upon that election, that party must also have gained an advantage, or the opposing party must have suffered some detriment” (Prudential Oil Corp. v Phillips Petroleum Co., 418 F Supp 254, 257 [SD NY 1975]; 331 E. 14th St. v 331 E. 2002The action was properly dismissed without prejudice to a new action for damages. “[F]or an election of remedies to bar the pursuit of alternative relief, legal and equitable, a party must have chosen one of two or more coexisting inconsistent remedies, and in reliance upon that election, that party must also have gained an advantage, or the opposing party must have suffered some detriment.” (Prudential Oil Corp. v Phillips Petroleum Co., 418 F Supp 254, 257 [SD NY], citing, inter alia, Hill v McKinley, 254 App Div 283 ). | 2 | 2 |
Corrao v. Corraogreen2 sentences2012Furthermore, since the lien and the plenary action “are not inconsistent, maintenance of the latter is not precluded under the doctrine of election of remedies” (Corrao v Corrao, 133 AD2d 245, 248 [1987]; cf. Simon v Boyer, 51 AD2d 879 [1976], affd 41 NY2d 822 [1977]). 2012Furthermore, since the lien and the plenary action “are not inconsistent, maintenance of the latter is not precluded under the doctrine of election of remedies” (Corrao v Corrao, 133 AD2d 245, 248 [1987]; cf. Simon v Boyer, 51 AD2d 879 [1976], affd 41 NY2d 822 [1977]). | 2 | 2 |
Lewyt-Patchogue Co. v. Cantorgreen2 sentences2019We also agree with respondent that the court erred in its determination that the last chance agreement was rendered unenforceable under the election of remedies doctrine inasmuch as that doctrine has no application to the last chance agreement or to the facts of this case ( cf. Simon v Boyer , 51 AD2d 879 , 880 [4th Dept 1976], affd 41 NY2d 822 [1977]; Lewyt-Patchogue Co. v Cantor , 82 AD2d 911, 912 [2d Dept 1981]). 1987Moreover, because the wage deduction order and the plenary action are not inconsistent, maintenance of the latter is not precluded under the doctrine of election of remedies (see, Lewyt-Patchogue Co. v Cantor, 82 AD2d 911 ). | 1 | 2 |
James v. Coughlingreen2 sentences2017However, Executive Law § 297 (9) provides that, “ ‘where the [Division has dismissed such complaint on the grounds of administrative convenience [,] . . . such person shall maintain all rights to bring suit as if no complaint had been filed with the [Division’ ” (Wrenn v Verizon, 106 AD3d at 996 , quoting Executive Law § 297 [9]; see Matter of James v Coughlin, 124 AD2d 728, 729-730 [1986]). 2016The filing of a complaint with the Division precludes the commencement of an action in the Supreme Court asserting the same discriminatory acts (see Wrenn v Verizon, 106 AD3d at 995-996 ; Ehrlich v Kantor, 213 AD2d 447, 447 [1995]; Craig-Oriol v Mount Sinai Hosp., 201 AD2d 449, 450 [1994]). *882 Here, the petitioner is barred from maintaining this CPLR article 78 proceeding by the election of remedies doctrine because the instant claims are based on the same allegedly discriminatory conduct asserted in the petitioner’s complaint filed with the Division (see Executive Law § 297 [9]; Matter of J | 1 | 2 |
Ford v. Babylon Union Free School Districtgreen2 sentences2017Pursuant to the election of remedies doctrine, the filing of a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights (hereinafter the Division) precludes the commencement of an action in the Supreme Court asserting the same discriminatory acts (see Executive Law § 297 [9]; Wrenn v Verizon, 106 AD3d 995, 995-996 [2013]; Ehrlich v Kantor, 213 AD2d 447 [1995]; Craig-Oriol v Mount Sinai Hosp., 201 AD2d 449, 450 [1994]). 2016The filing of a complaint with the Division precludes the commencement of an action in the Supreme Court asserting the same discriminatory acts (see Wrenn v Verizon, 106 AD3d at 995-996 ; Ehrlich v Kantor, 213 AD2d 447, 447 [1995]; Craig-Oriol v Mount Sinai Hosp., 201 AD2d 449, 450 [1994]). *882 Here, the petitioner is barred from maintaining this CPLR article 78 proceeding by the election of remedies doctrine because the instant claims are based on the same allegedly discriminatory conduct asserted in the petitioner’s complaint filed with the Division (see Executive Law § 297 [9]; Matter of J | 1 | 2 |
In re Sterngreen1 sentence2026In any event, the election of remedies doctrine bars a complaint that is "couched in terms of" another cause of action where, as here, "it is obvious that its essential thrust is the same as that contained in" the DHR complaint (<i>Low v Gibbs & Hill</i>, 92 AD2d 467, 468 [1st Dept 1983]). | 1 | 1 |
Aurora Loan Services, LLC v. Grantgreen1 sentence2024Thus, a plaintiff in a foreclosure action may seek a deficiency judgment in the complaint, as incidental to the principal relief demanded." (id quoting from Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Lapa, 88 AD3d at 930). | 1 | 1 |
Parlux Fragrances, LLC v. S. Carter Enters., LLCgreen1 sentence2024The innocent party has a reasonable time to make the election." (Parlux Fragrances, LLC v S. Carter Enters., LLC, 204 AD3d 72, 86 [1st Dept 2022] [citations omitted].) Here, an issue of fact exists as to whether Broadway Tenant's conduct following Guidara's departure "amounted to an election ... to affirm the contract." (Id.) Although Broadway Tenant admits to negotiating to keep Humm "in place" (NYSCEF 129, tr at 152:7-153:24 [Zobler8 Depa]), it cannot be determined on this record, as a matter of law, that by doing so there was an election to continue to perform under the existing Agreement d | 1 | 1 |
Emil v. Deweygreen1 sentence2020Dist. , 148 AD3d 963, 964 ; see Emil v Dewey , 49 NY2d 968, 969 ; Rodriguez v Dickard Widder Indus. , 150 AD3d 1169, 1171 ). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Phillips v. Yorkgreen1 sentence2019If it was the intent of the parties to preclude respondent from seeking a penalty for petitioner's failure to comply with the last chance agreement if respondent "employed the procedures set forth by [Education Law § 3020-a], it was incumbent upon them to have specifically so stated" in the agreement ( Matter of Phillips v York , 135 AD3d 1231, 1232 [3d Dept 2016] [internal quotation marks omitted]). | 1 | 1 |
| Aurora Loan Services, LLC v. Spearmangreen | 1 | 1 |
Shaw Funding, L.P. v. Grauergreen1 sentence2016Thus, under this election of remedies principle, a plaintiff who has commenced an action to foreclose on a mortgage is not permitted to commence a second simultaneous action attempting to recover the same debt without obtaining leave of court in the foreclosure action (see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Reid, 132 AD3d 788, 788-789 [2d Dept 2015]; Shaw Funding, L.P. v Grauer, 98 AD3d 660, 660 [2d Dept 2012]; Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Spearman, 68 AD3d 796, 797 [2d Dept 2009]). | 1 | 1 |
| Silver v. Temple Shalom of Flatbush, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. v. 400 Garden City Associatesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Aurora Loan Services, LLC v. Reidgreen | 1 | 1 |
Kane v. Estia Greek Restaurant, Inc.green1 sentence2016It has been held, however, that “[although RPAPL 1301 (3) prohibits a mortgage lender seeking repayment of a loan from simultaneously prosecuting an action at law to recover upon a promissory note and an action in equity to foreclose the mortgage, the prohibition does not apply where . . . the property securing the loan is located outside of New York State” (Wells Fargo Bank Minn. v Cohn, 4 AD3d 189, 189 [1st Dept 2004]; see also Federal Deposit Ins. | 1 | 1 |
| Velazquez v. Water Taxi, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Boulder Brook Acres, Inc. v. Town of Scarsdalegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Natale v. Martin Volkswagen, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Lupa v. Jock'sgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ireland v. J.L.'s Auto Sales, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Kennedy v. . City of New Yorkgreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Henry v. . Herrington
neutral
2 sentences1984The election of remedies doctrine only operates when there was a choice of remedies available at the time the prior actions were undertaken (Henry v Herring-ton, 193 NY 218 ; Liston v Hicks, 243 App Div 159 , affd 269 NY 535 ). 11 Here, at the time in 1981 when it brought actions in the Supreme Court to enjoin such activities, the Department did not possess the power to order businesses such as the ones operated by the petitioners to stop illegal activities. 1976For purposes of the doctrine of election of remedies, inconsistent remedies are those which proceed on opposite and irreconcilable claims of rights (Henry v Herrington, 193 NY 218 ). | 6 | 1921–1984 |
People v. Tifft
green
2 sentences2019We also agree with respondent that the court erred in its determination that the last chance agreement was rendered unenforceable under the election of remedies doctrine inasmuch as that doctrine has no application to the last chance agreement or to the facts of this case ( cf. Simon v Boyer , 51 AD2d 879 , 880 [4th Dept 1976], affd 41 NY2d 822 [1977]; Lewyt-Patchogue Co. v Cantor , 82 AD2d 911, 912 [2d Dept 1981]). 2012Furthermore, since the lien and the plenary action “are not inconsistent, maintenance of the latter is not precluded under the doctrine of election of remedies” (Corrao v Corrao, 133 AD2d 245, 248 [1987]; cf. Simon v Boyer, 51 AD2d 879 [1976], affd 41 NY2d 822 [1977]). | 4 | 1978–2019 |
Clark v. Kirby
green
2 sentences2001The election of remedies doctrine did not preclude the sisters from switching to the second of the two equitable remedy options made available by the Surrogate, which would provide them with immediate tangible benefits, because requiring them, at their advanced age, to continue with the option they originally chose would have engendered a protracted accounting proceeding covering a 40-year period, and, in so doing, would have effectively deprived them of any remedy at all (see, Clark v Kirby, 243 NY 295, 303 ). 2000The election of remedies doctrine did not preclude the sisters from switching to the second of the two equitable remedy options made available by the Surrogate, which would provide them with immediate tangible benefits, because requiring them, at their advanced age, to continue with the option they originally chose would have engendered a protracted accounting proceeding covering a 40-year period, and, in so doing, would have effectively deprived them of any remedy at all (see, Clark v Kirby, 243 NY 295, 303 ). | 4 | 1933–2001 |
ASTORIA FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION/FIDELITY NY FSB v. Lane
neutral
2 sentences2021We find that her claims for gender discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation are also barred by that doctrine ( see Benjamin v New York City Dept. of Health , 57 AD3d 403 , 403-404 [1st Dept 2008], lv dismissed 14 NY3d 880 [2010]). 2021We find that her claims for gender discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation are also barred by that doctrine ( see Benjamin v New York City Dept. of Health , 57 AD3d 403 , 403-404 [1st Dept 2008], lv dismissed 14 NY3d 880 [2010]). | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Vetro v. Hampton Bays Union Free School District
green
2 sentences2020Dist. , 148 AD3d 963, 964 ; see Emil v Dewey , 49 NY2d 968, 969 ; Rodriguez v Dickard Widder Indus. , 150 AD3d 1169, 1171 ). 2018Dist ., 148 AD3d 963, 964 ; see Executive Law § 297[9]; Rodriguez v Dickard Widder Indus ., 150 AD3d 1169, 1170-1171 ). | 2 | 2018–2020 |
Rodriguez v. Dickard Widder Industries
green
2 sentences2020Dist. , 148 AD3d 963, 964 ; see Emil v Dewey , 49 NY2d 968, 969 ; Rodriguez v Dickard Widder Indus. , 150 AD3d 1169, 1171 ). 2018The election of remedies doctrine does not implicate the subject matter jurisdiction of the court, but rather deprives a plaintiff of a cause of action ( see Rodriguez v Dickard Widder Indus ., 150 AD3d at 1171 ). | 2 | 2018–2020 |
American Woolen Co. v. . Samuelsohn
green
2 sentences2011Petitioners’ cause of action for a judgment declaring “ACNY the owner of the ‘Z’ goods held by the Liechtenstein Trusts” is barred by the doctrine of the election of remedies (see American Woolen Co. of N.Y. v Samuelsohn, 226 NY 61 [1919]). 1921(Friederichsen v. Renard, 247 U. S. 207.) It is only applicable “ when a choice is exercised between remedies which proceed upon irreconcilable claims of right ” (American Woolen Company v. Samuelsohn, 226 N. Y. 61 ); “ where there is, by law, or by contract, a choice between two remedies ” (Henry v. Herrington, 193 N. Y. 218 ). | 2 | 1921–2011 |
McBrien v. Murphy
neutral
2 sentences2001The appointment of a receiver was otherwise warranted in light of clear and convincing evidence that objectantappellant Walter Sakow’s continued control of the Bronx prop erties would result in irreparable harm to the sisters’ interests therein (cf., McBrien v Murphy, 156 AD2d 140 ). 2000The appointment of a receiver was otherwise warranted in light of clear and convincing evidence that obj ectantappellant Walter Sakow’s continued control of the Bronx properties would result in irreparable harm to the sisters’ interests therein (cf., McBrien v Murphy, 156 AD2d 140 ). | 2 | 2000–2001 |
Schenck v. . State Line Telephone Co.
green
2 sentences1979Co., 238 NY 308 ). 1973Co., 238 N. Y. 308 [1924]). | 2 | 1973–1979 |
Cornell v. Bonsall
neutral
2 sentences1937As to the doctrine of election of remedies, or of the objection, of ‘ another action pending,’ the first only applies where there is a choice between two remedies, which proceed upon ‘ opposite and irreconcilable ’ claims of right (Henry v. Herrington, 193 N. Y. 218 ), and the second requires complete identity of parties, cause of action and judgment sought (Cornell v. Bonsall, 176 App. Div. 798 ), and is ‘ subject to this limitation, recognized in all the cases, that full relief can be obtained in the first proceeding ’ (Cullen, J., in Matter of Hood, 27 Hun, 579 ).” Applying the rule of law 1923As to the doctrine of election of remedies, or of the objection of “ another action pending,” the first only applies where there is a choice between two remedies, which proceed upon “ opposite and irreconcilable ” claims of right (Henry v. Herrington, 193 N. Y. 218 ), and the second requires complete identity of parties, cause of action and judgment sought (Cornell v. Bonsall, 176 App. Div. 798 ), and is “ subject to this limitation, recognized in all the cases, that full relief can be obtained in the first proceeding.” (Cullen, J., in Matter of Hood, 27 Hun, 579 .) None of these conditions ex | 2 | 1923–1937 |
City of Newburgh v. Local 589, International Ass'n of Firefighters
neutral
1 sentence2025Assn. of Firefighters, AFL-CIO , 140 AD2d 339, 340 ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Magini v. Otnorp, Ltd.
neutral
1 sentence2020The fact that the plaintiff proceeded pro se in filing the NYSDHR complaint or had other difficulties, such as a language barrier, does not preclude the application of the doctrine of the election of remedies ( see Magini v Otnorp, Ltd. , 180 AD2d 476 , [*3]477). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Havens v. Flushing Hospital Medical Center
green
1 sentence2017The election of remedies doctrine and the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law do not implicate the subject matter jurisdiction of the *1171 court, but rather deprive a plaintiff of a cause of action (see Executive Law § 297 [9]; Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11, 29 [6]; Wrenn v Verizon, 106 AD3d 995 [2013]; Hirsch v Morgan Stanley & Co., 239 AD2d 466 [1997]; see generally Lacks v Lacks, 41 NY2d 71 , 74-75 [1976]). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| The First National Bank & Trust Co. of Walton v. Eisenrod green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| 331 East 14th St. LLC v. 331 East Corp. green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Wynyard v. Beiny green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Hill v. McKinley green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Finkelstein v. Ilan neutral | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Ireland v. J.L.'s Auto Sales, Inc. neutral | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Kaplan v. Kaplan green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Ventures International v. Uppstrom neutral | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Judnick Realty Corp. v. 32 West 32nd Street Corp. green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Brizzi v. Brizzi green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Cumming v. Cumming green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Quill v. Quill neutral | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Plant City Steel Corp. v. National MacHinery Exchange, Inc. green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Liston v. Hicks neutral | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Liston v. Hicks neutral | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Brown v. Lockwood green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Strong v. Reeves green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Smith v. Kirkpatrick green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Strong v. Reeves green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Hoehn v. Schenck green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Roberge v. . Winne green | 1 | 1949–1949 |
| Blazer v. Philipowitz neutral | 1 | 1949–1949 |
| Epp v. Title Guarantee & Trust Co. neutral | 1 | 1949–1949 |
| Jos. H. Meyer Bros. v. American Powder Puff Mfg. Co. neutral | 1 | 1937–1937 |
| Friederichsen v. Renard green | 1 | 1921–1921 |
| Matter of Garver neutral | 1 | 1904–1904 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.