6 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1958–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. John S.green2 sentences2023In our view, "[t]he meaning of the statute's notwithstanding clause is plainly understood and clearly supersedes any inconsistent provisions of state law" ( Matter of State of New York v John S. , 23 NY3d 326, 341 [2014] [internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted]). 2021"The meaning of [a] statute's 'notwithstanding' clause is plainly understood and clearly supersedes any inconsistent provisions of state law" ( Matter of State of New York v John S. , 23 NY3d 326, 341 [2014] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Melendez v Wing , 8 NY3d 598, 609 [2007]; Del Terzo v Hospital for Special Surgery , 95 AD3d 551, 552 [2012]). | 2 | 2 |
McAllister v. New York City Transit Authoritygreen1 sentence2021"The meaning of [a] statute's 'notwithstanding' clause is plainly understood and clearly supersedes any inconsistent provisions of state law" ( Matter of State of New York v John S. , 23 NY3d 326, 341 [2014] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Melendez v Wing , 8 NY3d 598, 609 [2007]; Del Terzo v Hospital for Special Surgery , 95 AD3d 551, 552 [2012]). | 1 | 1 |
Melendez v. Winggreen1 sentence2021"The meaning of [a] statute's 'notwithstanding' clause is plainly understood and clearly supersedes any inconsistent provisions of state law" ( Matter of State of New York v John S. , 23 NY3d 326, 341 [2014] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Melendez v Wing , 8 NY3d 598, 609 [2007]; Del Terzo v Hospital for Special Surgery , 95 AD3d 551, 552 [2012]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Mitchellgreen1 sentence2019Put differently, the notwithstanding clause of the statute evinces the legislature’s intent that any “local law for the stabilization of rents” that would exempt the unit from “control under such local law” does not apply to buildings receiving RPTL 421-g benefits, with the sole exception being for cooperatives and condominiums (see People v Mitchell, 15 NY3d 93, 97 [2010] [describing a notwithstanding clause as “the verbal formulation frequently employed for legislative directives intended to preempt any other potentially conflicting statute”]). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wallace v. 600 Partners Co.
green
2 sentences2013For example, in Matter of Wallace v 600 Partners Co. ( 86 NY2d 543 [1995]), a lease provision, “[i]f read literally, . . . require [d] that the determination of the rent amount for the first renewal term — which commenced on July 1, 1993 — take place 32 years after the term began, in 2025” (id. at 546). 2013For example, in Matter of Wallace v 600 Partners Co. ( 86 NY2d 543 [1995]), a lease provision, “[i]f read literally, . . . require [d] that the determination of the rent amount for the first renewal term — which commenced on July 1, 1993 — take place 32 years after the term began, in 2025” (id. at 546). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Kingston v. Kingston
neutral
1 sentence1958Parties may not confer jurisdiction by stipulation nor may estoppel or acquiescence “ serve to confer jurisdiction where jurisdiction did not exist.” (Kingston v. Kingston, 283 App. Div. 355, 357 ; see “ Stipulations and Their Enforcement”, N. Y. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
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.