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 1 courts 2004–2014 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Bauerlein v. Salvation Armygreen2 sentences2014Since, in opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact, the Supreme Court erred in denying that branch of Mack’s motion (see Bauerlein v Salvation Army, 74 AD3d 851, 855 [2010]). 2014Since, in opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact, the Supreme Court erred in denying that branch of Mack’s motion (see Bauerlein v Salvation Army, 74 AD3d 851, 855 [2010]). | 2 | 2 |
Zuckerman v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2014Mack and Bostrom, however, failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing so much of the complaint as alleged negligence and strict products liability based upon a manufacturing defect (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d at 562 ; cf. Preston v Peter Luger Enters., Inc., 51 AD3d at 1324). 2014Mack and Bostrom, however, failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing so much of the complaint as alleged negligence and strict products liability based upon a manufacturing defect (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d at 562 ; cf. Preston v Peter Luger Enters., Inc., 51 AD3d at 1324). | 1 | 3 |
Pepe v. Center for Jewish History, Inc.green1 sentence2012Corp., 49 AD3d 380 [2008]; see also Pepe v Center for Jewish History, Inc., 59 AD3d 277 [2009]). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lotz v. Aramark Services, Inc.
green
2 sentences2013Ordinarily, the breach of a contractual obligation is not sufficient in and of itself to impose tort liability upon the promisor to noncontracting parties (see Lotz v Aramark Servs., Inc., 98 AD3d 602 , 603 [2012]). 2013Ordinarily, the breach of a contractual obligation is not sufficient in and of itself to impose tort liability upon the promisor to noncontracting parties (see Lotz v Aramark Servs., Inc., 98 AD3d 602 , 603 [2012]). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Paltie v. Marquise Construction Corp.
neutral
1 sentence2012Corp., 49 AD3d 380 [2008]; see also Pepe v Center for Jewish History, Inc., 59 AD3d 277 [2009]). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.