industrial motion (New York) · Go Syfert
← New York issues

industrial motion in New York

6 New York opinions name it 1 courts 2011–2016 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Zuckerman v. City of New Yorkgreen
ny · 1980 · cited in 2 New York opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
2 sentences

2012Even assuming, arguendo, that Industrial established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, we conclude that plaintiff submitted sufficient evidence in opposition to Industrial’s motion to raise an issue of fact whether Industrial, rather than Antonicelli, was responsible for leaving the electrical box uncovered (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 ).

2012Even assuming, arguendo, that Industrial established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, we conclude that plaintiff submitted sufficient evidence in opposition to Industrial’s motion to raise an issue of fact whether Industrial, rather than Antonicelli, was responsible for leaving the electrical box uncovered (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

12
Seidman v. Industrial Recycling Properties, Inc.green
nyappdiv · 2013 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
2 sentences

2016In a decision and order dated May 22, 2013, this Court modified the March 14, 2012, order, and granted that branch of Industrial’s motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the counterclaim alleging breach of contract (see id. at 983).

2016In a decision and order dated May 22, 2013, this Court modified the March 14, 2012, order, and granted that branch of Industrial’s motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the counterclaim alleging breach of contract (see id. at 983).

11
Sopher v. Martingreen
nyappdiv · 1997 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
2 sentences

2011Similarly, that branch of Industrial’s motion which was for leave to amend its pleadings to add a counterclaim alleging slander of title based on the filing of a notice of pendency was properly denied, as the filing of a notice of pendency does not give rise to such a cause of action (see Alexander v Scott, 286 AD2d 692 [2001]; Sopher v Martin, 243 AD2d 459, 462 [1997]; 35-45 May Assoc. v Mayloc Assoc., 162 AD2d 389 [1990]).

2011Similarly, that branch of Industrial’s motion which was for leave to amend its pleadings to add a counterclaim alleging slander of title based on the filing of a notice of pendency was properly denied, as the filing of a notice of pendency does not give rise to such a cause of action (see Alexander v Scott, 286 AD2d 692 [2001]; Sopher v Martin, 243 AD2d 459, 462 [1997]; 35-45 May Assoc. v Mayloc Assoc., 162 AD2d 389 [1990]).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

CaseCitedYears
Quilliams v. Half Hollow Hills School District green
nyappdiv · 2009
2 sentences

2013Industrial established, prima facie, its entitlement to judg ment as a matter of law on the issue of liability on its counterclaim alleging breach of contract by adducing evidence that the plaintiff breached the mortgage contract by improperly accelerating the mortgage and commencing this foreclosure action (see Quilliams v Half Hollow Hills School Dist. [Candlewood School], 67 AD3d 763 [2009]).

2013Industrial established, prima facie, its entitlement to judg ment as a matter of law on the issue of liability on its counterclaim alleging breach of contract by adducing evidence that the plaintiff breached the mortgage contract by improperly accelerating the mortgage and commencing this foreclosure action (see Quilliams v Half Hollow Hills School Dist. [Candlewood School], 67 AD3d 763 [2009]).

22013–2013
Seidman v. Industrial Recycling Properties, Inc. green
nyappdiv · 2011
2 sentences

2013In a decision and order dated April 26, 2011, this Court modified an order of the Supreme Court which, inter alia, denied that branch of a subsequent motion by Industrial which was for leave to amend its pleadings to assert a counterclaim alleging breach of contract, and granted that branch of Industrial’s motion (see Seidman v Industrial Recycling Props., Inc., 83 AD3d 1040 [2011]).

2013In a decision and order dated April 26, 2011, this Court modified an order of the Supreme Court which, inter alia, denied that branch of a subsequent motion by Industrial which was for leave to amend its pleadings to assert a counterclaim alleging breach of contract, and granted that branch of Industrial’s motion (see Seidman v Industrial Recycling Props., Inc., 83 AD3d 1040 [2011]).

22013–2013
Carrasco v. Weissman green
nyappdiv · 2014
1 sentence

2016In support of its motion, Industrial did not provide new facts or new law that would change the court’s prior determination (see CPLR 2221 [e] [3]; Carrasco v Weissman, 120 AD3d 534 [2014]).

12016–2016
Alexander v. Scott green
nyappdiv · 2001
2 sentences

2011Similarly, that branch of Industrial’s motion which was for leave to amend its pleadings to add a counterclaim alleging slander of title based on the filing of a notice of pendency was properly denied, as the filing of a notice of pendency does not give rise to such a cause of action (see Alexander v Scott, 286 AD2d 692 [2001]; Sopher v Martin, 243 AD2d 459, 462 [1997]; 35-45 May Assoc. v Mayloc Assoc., 162 AD2d 389 [1990]).

2011Similarly, that branch of Industrial’s motion which was for leave to amend its pleadings to add a counterclaim alleging slander of title based on the filing of a notice of pendency was properly denied, as the filing of a notice of pendency does not give rise to such a cause of action (see Alexander v Scott, 286 AD2d 692 [2001]; Sopher v Martin, 243 AD2d 459, 462 [1997]; 35-45 May Assoc. v Mayloc Assoc., 162 AD2d 389 [1990]).

12011–2011
Sunrise Plaza Associates L.P. v. International Summit Equities Corp. green
nyappdiv · 2001
2 sentences

2011However, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of Industrial’s motion which was for leave to amend its pleadings to add a counterclaim alleging unjust enrichment, as such a claim does not lie where, as here, it is undisputed that a valid contract covering the same subject matter exists between the parties (see Sunrise Plaza Assoc. v International Summit Equities Corp., 288 AD2d 300 [2001]).

2011However, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of Industrial’s motion which was for leave to amend its pleadings to add a counterclaim alleging unjust enrichment, as such a claim does not lie where, as here, it is undisputed that a valid contract covering the same subject matter exists between the parties (see Sunrise Plaza Assoc. v International Summit Equities Corp., 288 AD2d 300 [2001]).

12011–2011
35-45 May Associates v. Mayloc Associates green
nyappdiv · 1990
2 sentences

2011Similarly, that branch of Industrial’s motion which was for leave to amend its pleadings to add a counterclaim alleging slander of title based on the filing of a notice of pendency was properly denied, as the filing of a notice of pendency does not give rise to such a cause of action (see Alexander v Scott, 286 AD2d 692 [2001]; Sopher v Martin, 243 AD2d 459, 462 [1997]; 35-45 May Assoc. v Mayloc Assoc., 162 AD2d 389 [1990]).

2011Similarly, that branch of Industrial’s motion which was for leave to amend its pleadings to add a counterclaim alleging slander of title based on the filing of a notice of pendency was properly denied, as the filing of a notice of pendency does not give rise to such a cause of action (see Alexander v Scott, 286 AD2d 692 [2001]; Sopher v Martin, 243 AD2d 459, 462 [1997]; 35-45 May Assoc. v Mayloc Assoc., 162 AD2d 389 [1990]).

12011–2011

Where else courts name it

OH 13 (1987–2017) AZ 6 (1975–2016) NY 6 (2011–2016) WA 4 (1994–2016) ID 3 (1975–1989) CA 2 (2003–2022) MO 2 (1998–2000)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check