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.
8 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1916–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hall v. L&A Operational, LLCgreen2 sentences2026Additionally, the plaintiff demonstrated a potentially meritorious cause of action and that there was no demonstrable prejudice to the defendant as a consequence of the delay in service ( see Rhoe v Reid , 240 AD3d at 638; Hall v L & A Operational, LLC , 228 AD3d at 847). 2026The plaintiff established that the action was timely commenced and that the plaintiff reasonably believed that the defendant had waived the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction ( see Hall v L & A Operational, LLC , 228 AD3d at 847; Bhatara v Kolaj , 222 AD3d at 930-931). | 1 | 1 |
Bhatara v. Kolajgreen1 sentence2026The plaintiff established that the action was timely commenced and that the plaintiff reasonably believed that the defendant had waived the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction ( see Hall v L & A Operational, LLC , 228 AD3d at 847; Bhatara v Kolaj , 222 AD3d at 930-931). | 1 | 1 |
Rhoe v. Reidgreen1 sentence2026Additionally, the plaintiff demonstrated a potentially meritorious cause of action and that there was no demonstrable prejudice to the defendant as a consequence of the delay in service ( see Rhoe v Reid , 240 AD3d at 638; Hall v L & A Operational, LLC , 228 AD3d at 847). | 1 | 1 |
HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Taubgreen1 sentence2023Thus, the court properly concluded that the defendant had waived the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction ( see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Taub , 170 AD3d at 1129-1130). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
TPZ Corp. v. Dabbs
green
2 sentences2019In fact, Mastropaolo recognizes that where a defendant challenges the plaintiff's standing, a plaintiff is obligated to prove its standing ( see id. at 242 , citing TPZ Corp. v Dabbs , 25 AD3d 787, 789 ). 2019In fact, Mastropaolo recognizes that where a defendant challenges the plaintiff's standing, a plaintiff is obligated to prove its standing ( see id. at 242 , citing TPZ Corp. v Dabbs , 25 AD3d 787, 789 ). | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, National Ass'n v. Mastropaolo
green
2 sentences2019In fact, Mastropaolo recognizes that where a defendant challenges the plaintiff's standing, a plaintiff is obligated to prove its standing ( see id. at 242 , citing TPZ Corp. v Dabbs , 25 AD3d 787, 789 ). 2019In fact, Mastropaolo recognizes that where a defendant challenges the plaintiff's standing, a plaintiff is obligated to prove its standing ( see id. at 242 , citing TPZ Corp. v Dabbs , 25 AD3d 787, 789 ). | 2 | 2019–2019 |
US Bank N.A. v. Chkifati
neutral
1 sentence2022Since the defendant had waived the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction by failing to timely assert it, that defense was not a proper basis on which to vacate the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale and to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant ( see U.S. Bank N.A. v Chkifati , 203 AD3d at 1214-1215 ; U.S. Bank N.A. v Pepe , 161 AD3d at 812-813). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Johnson
green
1 sentence2009People v Ortiz, 19 AD3d 281 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 809 [2005]; People v Johnson, 196 AD2d 408 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 806 [1993]). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
People v. Ortiz
neutral
1 sentence2009People v Ortiz, 19 AD3d 281 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 809 [2005]; People v Johnson, 196 AD2d 408 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 806 [1993]). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
People v. Ortiz
neutral
1 sentence2009People v Ortiz, 19 AD3d 281 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 809 [2005]; People v Johnson, 196 AD2d 408 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 806 [1993]). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Schiff v. Home Owners' Loan Corp.
neutral
1 sentence1940In the case of Schiff v. Home Owners’ Loan Corp. ( 168 Misc. 498 ) the court denied a motion to dismiss the complaint against the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation in an action based upon tort, upon the ground that the act of Congress creating the defendant had waived its immunity from suit. | 1 | 1940–1940 |
People Ex Rel. Taylor v. . Forbes
green
1 sentence1916Taylor Forbes ( 143 N. Y. 219, 231 ): “The weight of authority seems to be in favor of the rule that the witness may be compelled to answer * * * when it is perfectly clear and plain that he is mistaken, and that the answer cannot possibly injure him, or tend in any degree to subject him to the peril of prosecution.” We did not hold that the defendant had waived his privilege by serving a verified answer, and that is not the law. | 1 | 1916–1916 |
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.