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 1953–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lawlor v. Engleygreen2 sentences2024As to the allegation of fraud, it is similarly true that the merger doctrine would not bar such a claim ( see Lawlor v Engley , 166 AD2d 799, 800 [3d Dept 1990]). 2024As to the allegation of fraud, it is similarly true that the merger doctrine would not bar such a claim ( see Lawlor v Engley , 166 AD2d 799, 800 [3d Dept 1990]). | 2 | 2 |
McNeil v. Fischergreen2 sentences2024Accordingly, we find that the remainder of plaintiffs' claims predicated on mutual mistake and fraud were properly dismissed ( see Williams v Sowle , 209 AD3d at 1168; see also Timber Rattlesnake, LLC v Devine , 117 AD3d 1291 , 1293 [3d Dept 2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 904 [2014]; compare Carpenter v Morrette , 36 AD3d 1115, 1117 [3d Dept 2007]). 2024Accordingly, we find that the remainder of plaintiffs' claims predicated on mutual mistake and fraud were properly dismissed ( see Williams v Sowle , 209 AD3d at 1168; see also Timber Rattlesnake, LLC v Devine , 117 AD3d 1291 , 1293 [3d Dept 2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 904 [2014]; compare Carpenter v Morrette , 36 AD3d 1115, 1117 [3d Dept 2007]). | 2 | 2 |
Carpenter v. Morrettegreen2 sentences2024Accordingly, we find that the remainder of plaintiffs' claims predicated on mutual mistake and fraud were properly dismissed ( see Williams v Sowle , 209 AD3d at 1168; see also Timber Rattlesnake, LLC v Devine , 117 AD3d 1291 , 1293 [3d Dept 2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 904 [2014]; compare Carpenter v Morrette , 36 AD3d 1115, 1117 [3d Dept 2007]). 2024Accordingly, we find that the remainder of plaintiffs' claims predicated on mutual mistake and fraud were properly dismissed ( see Williams v Sowle , 209 AD3d at 1168; see also Timber Rattlesnake, LLC v Devine , 117 AD3d 1291 , 1293 [3d Dept 2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 904 [2014]; compare Carpenter v Morrette , 36 AD3d 1115, 1117 [3d Dept 2007]). | 2 | 2 |
Shults v. Gearygreen2 sentences2024Neither Simon Levy's conflicting testimony that he understood that the tax maps were representative of the relevant boundary line nor the communications from the Levy defendants' counsel [*6]concerning the parties' understanding of the boundary lines, which occurred after the deed was executed, are sufficient to create a triable issue of fact that the parties were both mistaken at the time they executed the deed, or that the tax map was "exactly what was really agreed upon between the parties" ( Shults v Geary , 241 AD2d at 852 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Williams v S 2024Neither Simon Levy's conflicting testimony that he understood that the tax maps were representative of the relevant boundary line nor the communications from the Levy defendants' counsel [*6]concerning the parties' understanding of the boundary lines, which occurred after the deed was executed, are sufficient to create a triable issue of fact that the parties were both mistaken at the time they executed the deed, or that the tax map was "exactly what was really agreed upon between the parties" ( Shults v Geary , 241 AD2d at 852 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Williams v S | 2 | 2 |
Mau v. Schuslergreen2 sentences2024As plaintiffs suggest, counsel possessed extrinsic evidence as to the intention of the parties concerning the relevant boundary line; however, the significance of such evidence is relevant only if the language in the deed was ambiguous ( see generally Mau v Schusler , 124 AD3d 1292, 1294-1295 [4th Dept 2015]). 2024As plaintiffs suggest, counsel possessed extrinsic evidence as to the intention of the parties concerning the relevant boundary line; however, the significance of such evidence is relevant only if the language in the deed was ambiguous ( see generally Mau v Schusler , 124 AD3d 1292, 1294-1295 [4th Dept 2015]). | 2 | 2 |
Hess v. Baccaratgreen2 sentences2024That Simon Levy later represented that he believed that he was retaining all arable farm land from the settlement does not demonstrate that the Levy defendants misrepresented that fact or that plaintiffs relied upon any material misrepresentation, particularly in light of their own understanding of the significance of the deed language ( see Vollbrecht v Jacobson , 40 AD3d at 1245 ; see also Hess v Baccarat , 287 AD2d 834, 837 [3d Dept 2001]). 2024That Simon Levy later represented that he believed that he was retaining all arable farm land from the settlement does not demonstrate that the Levy defendants misrepresented that fact or that plaintiffs relied upon any material misrepresentation, particularly in light of their own understanding of the significance of the deed language ( see Vollbrecht v Jacobson , 40 AD3d at 1245 ; see also Hess v Baccarat , 287 AD2d 834, 837 [3d Dept 2001]). | 2 | 2 |
Williams v. Sowlegreen2 sentences2024Neither Simon Levy's conflicting testimony that he understood that the tax maps were representative of the relevant boundary line nor the communications from the Levy defendants' counsel [*6]concerning the parties' understanding of the boundary lines, which occurred after the deed was executed, are sufficient to create a triable issue of fact that the parties were both mistaken at the time they executed the deed, or that the tax map was "exactly what was really agreed upon between the parties" ( Shults v Geary , 241 AD2d at 852 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Williams v S 2024Neither Simon Levy's conflicting testimony that he understood that the tax maps were representative of the relevant boundary line nor the communications from the Levy defendants' counsel [*6]concerning the parties' understanding of the boundary lines, which occurred after the deed was executed, are sufficient to create a triable issue of fact that the parties were both mistaken at the time they executed the deed, or that the tax map was "exactly what was really agreed upon between the parties" ( Shults v Geary , 241 AD2d at 852 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Williams v S | 2 | 2 |
Sanford v. Powersgreen2 sentences2025"A default judgment cannot exceed in amount or differ in the kind of relief from that demanded in the complaint" ( Sanford v Powers , 93 AD2d 985, 985; see Cukierwar v College Cent. 2025"A default judgment cannot exceed in amount or differ in the kind of relief from that demanded in the complaint" ( Sanford v Powers , 93 AD2d 985, 985; see Cukierwar v College Cent. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Vollbrecht v. Jacobson
green
2 sentences2024That Simon Levy later represented that he believed that he was retaining all arable farm land from the settlement does not demonstrate that the Levy defendants misrepresented that fact or that plaintiffs relied upon any material misrepresentation, particularly in light of their own understanding of the significance of the deed language ( see Vollbrecht v Jacobson , 40 AD3d at 1245 ; see also Hess v Baccarat , 287 AD2d 834, 837 [3d Dept 2001]). 2024That Simon Levy later represented that he believed that he was retaining all arable farm land from the settlement does not demonstrate that the Levy defendants misrepresented that fact or that plaintiffs relied upon any material misrepresentation, particularly in light of their own understanding of the significance of the deed language ( see Vollbrecht v Jacobson , 40 AD3d at 1245 ; see also Hess v Baccarat , 287 AD2d 834, 837 [3d Dept 2001]). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
In re Levy
green
1 sentence1982While Matter of Levy (supra) would be binding upon us whether we agree with it or not, we note that in a disciplinary proceeding such as this, as distinct from a motion for a new trial or an actual new trial, the United States Attorney, who presumably has the fullest knowledge and evidence bearing on guilt, is not present; the two coconspirators who made the exculpatory statements are also not present or subject to cross-examination, nor are the prosecution witnesses. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
People v. Miles
green
2 sentences1975People v Miles ( 23 NY2d 527 ), decided after Levy and Lombardi , does not lay down a contrary rule of law. 1975People v Miles ( 23 NY2d 527 ), decided after Levy and Lombardi , does not lay down a contrary rule of law. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Joseph v. Carter & Weekes Stevedoring Co.
green
1 sentence1953Such a tax was struck down in Joseph v. Carter & Weekes ( 330 U. S. 422 ). | 1 | 1953–1953 |
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.