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.
6 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1977–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kashipour v. Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSBgreen1 sentence2020Fund Socy., FSB , 144 AD3d 985, 987 ["the dismissal of the prior foreclosure action by the court did not constitute an affirmative act by the lender revoking its election to accelerate, and the record is barren of any affirmative act of revocation occurring during the six-year limitations period subsequent to the initiation of the prior action"]; Clayton Natl. v Guldi , 307 AD2d at 982 ["the dismissal of the 1992 action for lack of personal jurisdiction did not constitute an affirmative act by the lender to revoke its election to accelerate"]; EMC Mtge. | 1 | 1 |
Grgas v. Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc.green1 sentence2020Fund Socy., FSB , 144 AD3d 985, 987 ["the dismissal of the prior foreclosure action by the court did not constitute an affirmative act by the lender revoking its election to accelerate, and the record is barren of any affirmative act of revocation occurring during the six-year limitations period subsequent to the initiation of the prior action"]; Clayton Natl. v Guldi , 307 AD2d at 982 ["the dismissal of the 1992 action for lack of personal jurisdiction did not constitute an affirmative act by the lender to revoke its election to accelerate"]; EMC Mtge. | 1 | 1 |
Ewers v. Zoning Board of Appealsgreen1 sentence2007Prior to 1996, this Court adhered to the principle that “where a lot has been held in single and separate ownership since a date prior to the enactment of a zoning ordinance which renders it substandard, the owner is entitled to an area variance as of right” (Matter of Ewers v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Brookhaven, 165 AD2d 873, 874 [1990]; see Matter of Petikas v O’ Leary, supra; Matter of Patentan v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Irvington, supra). | 1 | 1 |
Petikas v. O'Learygreen1 sentence2007Prior to 1996, this Court adhered to the principle that “where a lot has been held in single and separate ownership since a date prior to the enactment of a zoning ordinance which renders it substandard, the owner is entitled to an area variance as of right” (Matter of Ewers v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Brookhaven, 165 AD2d 873, 874 [1990]; see Matter of Petikas v O’ Leary, supra; Matter of Patentan v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Irvington, supra). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pateman v. Zoning Board of Appeals
neutral
1 sentence2007Prior to 1996, this Court adhered to the principle that “where a lot has been held in single and separate ownership since a date prior to the enactment of a zoning ordinance which renders it substandard, the owner is entitled to an area variance as of right” (Matter of Ewers v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Brookhaven, 165 AD2d 873, 874 [1990]; see Matter of Petikas v O’ Leary, supra; Matter of Patentan v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Irvington, supra). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Richardson v. Orentreich
green
2 sentences2001In Richardson (supra), this Court adhered to that rule, concluding that “where the physician and patient reasonably intend the patient’s uninterrupted reliance upon the physician’s observation, directions, concern, and responsibility for overseeing the patient’s progress, the requirement for continuous care and treatment for the purpose of the Statute of Limitations is certainly satisfied” (supra, 64 NY2d, at 899 ). 2001In Richardson (supra), this Court adhered to that rule, concluding that “where the physician and patient reasonably intend the patient’s uninterrupted reliance upon the physician’s observation, directions, concern, and responsibility for overseeing the patient’s progress, the requirement for continuous care and treatment for the purpose of the Statute of Limitations is certainly satisfied” (supra, 64 NY2d, at 899 ). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
DiMichel v. South Buffalo Railway Co.
green
1 sentence1995Co. ( 80 NY2d 184, 197 ), that surveillance tapes are properly produced after a plaintiff’s deposition. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Matter of Lafayette Storage & Moving Corp.
green
1 sentence1994(Hartnett) ( 77 NY2d 823 ) and Matter of Martin (Troy Publ. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
People v. Sher
green
1 sentence1977In People v Sher ( 38 NY2d 600 ) the court adhered to the rule announced in Nicoletti and held that the failure of the prosecution to obtain judicial approval and supervision of the unsealing of tapes violated the procedure mandated by CPL article 700. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.