22 Cited authorities

Wright v. Ernst & Young LLP
152 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 1998) Cited 637 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may not amend its complaint by advancing a new theory of liability for the first time in its opposition to a motion to dismiss
National Market Share, v. Sterling Nat. Bank
392 F.3d 520 (2d Cir. 2004) Cited 250 times
Holding that intervening cause in underlying case was not an affirmative defense because intervening cause was integral part of proximate cause analysis in breach of contract/breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing action
Teachers Ins. Annuity Ass'n v. Tribune
670 F. Supp. 491 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) Cited 319 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding the following express language binding: "Upon receipt . . . of an accepted counter-part of this letter, our agreement to purchase from you and your agreement to issue, sell and deliver to us . . . the captioned securities, shall become a binding agreement between us."
Adjustrite Systems, Inc. v. Gab Business Services, Inc.
145 F.3d 543 (2d Cir. 1998) Cited 203 times
Holding that an agreement was not a Type I agreement because it was "expressly contingent" on the execution of future contracts
Brown v. Cara
420 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2005) Cited 157 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "where a question of intention is determinable by written agreements, the question is one of law"
Xpedior Creditor Trust v. Credit Suisse First Boston
341 F. Supp. 2d 258 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) Cited 80 times
Holding that “a court must determine whether the state law claim relies on misstatements or omissions as a ‘necessary component’ ” of the claim
Goodstein Construction Corp. v. City of New York
80 N.Y.2d 366 (N.Y. 1992) Cited 109 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that contract damages are ordinarily intended to give the injured party the benefit of the bargain by awarding a sum of money that will, to the extent possible, put that party in as good a position as it would have been in had the contract been performed
Mariah re Ltd. v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co.
52 F. Supp. 3d 601 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) Cited 33 times 1 Legal Analyses
No. 13–cv–4657 RJS. 2014-09-30 MARIAH RE LTD., Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., et al., Defendants. Jonathan D. Cogan and Megha J. Charalambides, Kobre & Kim LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff. Robert A. Kole, David S. Douglas, Jean–Paul Jaillet, and Jessica F. Pizzutelli, Choate Hall & Stewart LLP, Boston, MA, for Defendant American Family. Joel M. Cohen and Matthew B. Rowland, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants AIR and PCS. RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, District Judge
Ifill v. New York State Court Officers Association
655 F. Supp. 2d 382 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) Cited 36 times
Stating that a plaintiff “may not amend his complaint to add new claims by raising them for the first time in his motion papers.”
Benihana of Tokyo, LLC v. Benihana Inc.
73 F. Supp. 3d 238 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) Cited 20 times 1 Legal Analyses
Concluding that the word "may" renders arbitration mandatory once one party submits the dispute to arbitration; noting, "'may' does not, however, mean that if a party has elected to do so, the other may neutralize that choice by insisting on litigating in court."

HotelsAB Green, LLC v. Reignwood Europe Holdings SARL

22 Cited authorities

Holding a party may not amend its complaint by advancing a new theory of liability for the first time in its opposition to a motion to dismiss

Holding that intervening cause in underlying case was not an affirmative defense because intervening cause was integral part of proximate cause analysis in breach of contract/breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing action

Holding the following express language binding: "Upon receipt . . . of an accepted counter-part of this letter, our agreement to purchase from you and your agreement to issue, sell and deliver to us . . . the captioned securities, shall become a binding agreement between us."

Holding that an agreement was not a Type I agreement because it was "expressly contingent" on the execution of future contracts

Holding that "where a question of intention is determinable by written agreements, the question is one of law"

Holding that “a court must determine whether the state law claim relies on misstatements or omissions as a ‘necessary component’ ” of the claim

Holding that contract damages are ordinarily intended to give the injured party the benefit of the bargain by awarding a sum of money that will, to the extent possible, put that party in as good a position as it would have been in had the contract been performed

Stating that a plaintiff “may not amend his complaint to add new claims by raising them for the first time in his motion papers.”

Concluding that the word "may" renders arbitration mandatory once one party submits the dispute to arbitration; noting, "'may' does not, however, mean that if a party has elected to do so, the other may neutralize that choice by insisting on litigating in court."