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 2001–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
Morgenthow & Latham v. Bank of New York Co.green2 sentences2013Co., 305 AD2d 74, 80 [1st Dept 2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 512 [2003]; see also Biondi v Beekman Hill House Apt. 2007Co. ( 305 AD2d 74, 80 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 512 [2003]), we have, on several occasions, found that prior statements or averments of parties, or their agents, made during the course of a prior action or proceeding, that refute an essential element of a plaintiffs present claim, may constitute documentary evidence within the purview of CPLR 3211 (a) (1). | 3 | 3 |
Gunnarson v. Stategreen1 sentence2011The plaintiffs present challenge to certain testimony of a train engineer elicited during the defendant’s cross-examination of that witness on the grounds that it was speculative and lacked a factual foundation is not preserved for appellate review, as the plaintiff did not object to the testimony on those grounds at trial (see Palmer v CSX Transp., Inc., 68 AD3d 1626 , 1627-1628 [2009]; Gunnarson v State of New York, 95 AD2d 797, 798 [1983]). | 1 | 1 |
Nonnon v. City of New Yorkgreen1 sentence2007In evaluating a motion brought pursuant to CPLR 3211, the court, generally, will “accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]; see also Nonnon v City of New York, 9 NY3d 825, 827 [2007]). | 1 | 1 |
Leon v. Martinezgreen1 sentence2007In evaluating a motion brought pursuant to CPLR 3211, the court, generally, will “accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]; see also Nonnon v City of New York, 9 NY3d 825, 827 [2007]). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Palmer v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
green
1 sentence2011The plaintiffs present challenge to certain testimony of a train engineer elicited during the defendant’s cross-examination of that witness on the grounds that it was speculative and lacked a factual foundation is not preserved for appellate review, as the plaintiff did not object to the testimony on those grounds at trial (see Palmer v CSX Transp., Inc., 68 AD3d 1626 , 1627-1628 [2009]; Gunnarson v State of New York, 95 AD2d 797, 798 [1983]). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Muller v. City of New York
neutral
1 sentence2003The Supreme Court correctly dismissed the action as the stipulation of settlement entered into by the parties, which arose out of a prior action, was a bar to the plaintiffs present claim (see Plunder Lanes v Bellamore, 180 AD2d 783 [1992]; Muller v City of New York, 113 AD2d 877 [1985]; Skogsberg Constr. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Miller v. Henry Modell & Co.
green
1 sentence2003The Supreme Court correctly dismissed the action as the stipulation of settlement entered into by the parties, which arose out of a prior action, was a bar to the plaintiffs present claim (see Plunder Lanes v Bellamore, 180 AD2d 783 [1992]; Muller v City of New York, 113 AD2d 877 [1985]; Skogsberg Constr. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
In re Hoeffner
green
1 sentence2001School Dist., 227 AD2d 493 ; Matter of Hubbard v City School Dist., 204 AD2d 721 ). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Rusiecki v. Clarkstown Central School District
green
1 sentence2001School Dist., 227 AD2d 493 ; Matter of Hubbard v City School Dist., 204 AD2d 721 ). | 1 | 2001–2001 |