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 1985–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Zuckerman v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2024In opposition, the defendants INO Transportation Corp. and Okpalaku neither produced [*3]evidentiary proof in admissible form to raise a triable issue of fact nor demonstrated an acceptable excuse for the failure to meet the requirement of tender in admissible form ( see Zuckerman v City of New York , 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; Vaccariello v Meineke Car Care Ctr., Inc. , 136 AD3d 890, 893 [2d Dept 2016]). 2024In opposition, the defendants INO Transportation Corp. and Okpalaku neither produced [*3]evidentiary proof in admissible form to raise a triable issue of fact nor demonstrated an acceptable excuse for the failure to meet the requirement of tender in admissible form ( see Zuckerman v City of New York , 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; Vaccariello v Meineke Car Care Ctr., Inc. , 136 AD3d 890, 893 [2d Dept 2016]). | 3 | 4 |
Vaccariello v. Meineke Car Care Center, Inc.green2 sentences2024In opposition, the defendants INO Transportation Corp. and Okpalaku neither produced [*3]evidentiary proof in admissible form to raise a triable issue of fact nor demonstrated an acceptable excuse for the failure to meet the requirement of tender in admissible form ( see Zuckerman v City of New York , 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; Vaccariello v Meineke Car Care Ctr., Inc. , 136 AD3d 890, 893 [2d Dept 2016]). 2024In opposition, the defendants INO Transportation Corp. and Okpalaku neither produced [*3]evidentiary proof in admissible form to raise a triable issue of fact nor demonstrated an acceptable excuse for the failure to meet the requirement of tender in admissible form ( see Zuckerman v City of New York , 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; Vaccariello v Meineke Car Care Ctr., Inc. , 136 AD3d 890, 893 [2d Dept 2016]). | 3 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jiang-Hong Chen v. Heart Transit, Inc.
green
2 sentences2024The defendant driver Okpalaku's unsworn MV-104 accident report and driver accident statement (presumably written for his employer or insurance carrier) constitute inadmissible hearsay, and were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Jiang-Hong Chen v Heart Tr., Inc. , 143 AD3d at 946 ; Allstate Ins. 2024The defendant driver Okpalaku's unsworn MV-104 accident report and driver accident statement (presumably written for his employer or insurance carrier) constitute inadmissible hearsay, and were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Jiang-Hong Chen v Heart Tr., Inc. , 143 AD3d at 946 ; Allstate Ins. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Shapiro v. Butler
green
1 sentence2002The declarant, a part-owner of third-party defendant Superman Contracting, was shown to be unavailable to Townsend and in the control of Superman (see, Shapiro v Butler, 273 AD2d 657, 659-660 ). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
ITT Commercial Finance Corp. v. Union Bank & Trust Co.
green
1 sentence1998Corp. v Union Bank & Trust Co., 528 NE2d 1149 [Ind]; Wade Credit Corp. v Borg-Warner Acceptance Corp., 83 Ore App 479, 732 P2d 76 ; Matter of Manuel, 33 UCC Rep Serv 691 [US Bankr Ct, D SC]). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Wade Credit Corp. v. Borg-Warner Acceptance Corp.
green
1 sentence1998Corp. v Union Bank & Trust Co., 528 NE2d 1149 [Ind]; Wade Credit Corp. v Borg-Warner Acceptance Corp., 83 Ore App 479, 732 P2d 76 ; Matter of Manuel, 33 UCC Rep Serv 691 [US Bankr Ct, D SC]). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Valley Bank v. Estate of Rainsdon
neutral
2 sentences1998Although the “closely allied” test was not discussed by the North Platte court, which focused instead on the preloan passage to the debtor of all rights in the collateral, the case is in fact an illustration of a failure to meet that test’s requirements (see also, e.g., First Interstate Bank v Internal Revenue Serv., 930 F2d 1521; Valley Bank v Estate of Rainsdon, 117 Idaho 1085 , 793 P2d 1257 ; ITT Commercial Fin. 1998Although the “closely allied” test was not discussed by the North Platte court, which focused instead on the preloan passage to the debtor of all rights in the collateral, the case is in fact an illustration of a failure to meet that test’s requirements (see also, e.g., First Interstate Bank v Internal Revenue Serv., 930 F2d 1521; Valley Bank v Estate of Rainsdon, 117 Idaho 1085 , 793 P2d 1257 ; ITT Commercial Fin. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.