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 2 courts 2010–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
92 Bergenbrooklyn, LLC v. Cisaranogreen2 sentences2024A summary holdover proceeding is commenced when a notice of petition and petition are served on the respondent ( see 92 Bergenbrooklyn, LLC v Cisarano , 50 Misc 3d 21, 26 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]). 2024A summary holdover proceeding is commenced when a notice of petition and petition are served on the respondent ( see 92 Bergenbrooklyn, LLC v Cisarano , 50 Misc 3d 21, 26 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]). | 2 | 2 |
Sapienza v. Harrisongreen1 sentence2025By order dated August 8, 2023, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. "[T]he issue of a plaintiff's comparative negligence may be decided in the context of a summary judgment motion where, as here, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment dismissing a defendant's affirmative defense of comparative negligence" ( Poon v Nisanov , 162 AD3d 804 , 808; see Sapienza v Harrison , 191 AD3d 1028, 1029 ). | 1 | 1 |
Eurycleia Partners, LP v. Seward & Kissel, LLPgreen2 sentences2019In support of the eleventh affirmative defense and first counterclaim alleging fraudulent inducement ( see Eurycleia Partners, LP v Seward & Kissel, LLP , 12 NY3d 553, 559 [2009]), defendant alleges, as relevant herein, that, during a conference call with its CEO and CFO, plaintiff Solomon Sharbat, who was at the time a registered broker dealer with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), represented, on behalf of himself and the other plaintiffs, that he had previously run a publicly traded U.S. company, that he had raised hundreds of millions of dollars for other biotech compani 2019In support of the eleventh affirmative defense and first counterclaim alleging fraudulent inducement ( see Eurycleia Partners, LP v Seward & Kissel, LLP , 12 NY3d 553, 559 [2009]), defendant alleges, as relevant herein, that, during a conference call with its CEO and CFO, plaintiff Solomon Sharbat, who was at the time a registered broker dealer with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), represented, on behalf of himself and the other plaintiffs, that he had previously run a publicly traded U.S. company, that he had raised hundreds of millions of dollars for other biotech compani | 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 |
|---|---|---|
DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc. v. 44 Brushy Neck, Ltd.
green
1 sentence2019Capital, Inc. v 44 Brushy Neck, Ltd. , 51 AD3d 857, 858 ). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Sidamonidze v. Kay
green
2 sentences2019In support of the eleventh affirmative defense and first counterclaim alleging fraudulent inducement ( see Eurycleia Partners, LP v Seward & Kissel, LLP , 12 NY3d 553, 559 [2009]), defendant alleges, as relevant herein, that, during a conference call with its CEO and CFO, plaintiff Solomon Sharbat, who was at the time a registered broker dealer with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), represented, on behalf of himself and the other plaintiffs, that he had previously run a publicly traded U.S. company, that he had raised hundreds of millions of dollars for other biotech compani 2019In support of the eleventh affirmative defense and first counterclaim alleging fraudulent inducement ( see Eurycleia Partners, LP v Seward & Kissel, LLP , 12 NY3d 553, 559 [2009]), defendant alleges, as relevant herein, that, during a conference call with its CEO and CFO, plaintiff Solomon Sharbat, who was at the time a registered broker dealer with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), represented, on behalf of himself and the other plaintiffs, that he had previously run a publicly traded U.S. company, that he had raised hundreds of millions of dollars for other biotech compani | 1 | 2019–2019 |
HSBC Bank USA Ex Rel. Deutsche Alt-A Securities Mortgage Loan Trust Series 2006-AR5 v. Armijos
green
1 sentence2019The first affirmative defense is without merit as a matter of law, as the plaintiff established that it had possession of the note at the time it commenced this action and Gonzalez failed to raise any triable issue of fact ( see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Armijos , 151 AD3d 943, 944 ). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Manshion Joho Center Co. v. Manshion Joho Center, Inc.
green
1 sentence2010Co., Ltd. v Manshion Joho Ctr., Inc., 24 AD3d 189 [2005]). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.