§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of County of Genesee, Appellant,v.Nirav R. Shah,, et al., Respondents.

Brief

73 Cited authorities

  1. Stiver v. Good

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 9062 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 143 times
    Holding defendant cannot be said to have launched an instrument of harm because there is no evidence that condition was made less safe

  2. Albany Law Sch. v. New York State Office of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities

    2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 3227 (N.Y. 2012)   Cited 103 times

    No. 65 04-26-2012 In the Matter of Albany Law School et al., Respondents-Appellants, v. New York State Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities et al., Appellants-Respondents. Victor Paladino, for appellants-respondents. Jennifer J. Monthie, for respondents-appellants. NYSARC, Inc.; National Disability Rights Network et al., amici curiae. GRAFFEO Victor Paladino, for appellants-respondents. Jennifer J. Monthie, for respondents-appellants. NYSARC, Inc.; National Disability Rights

  3. Graziano v. County of Albany

    3 N.Y.3d 475 (N.Y. 2004)   Cited 109 times

    146. Argued October 13, 2004. Decided November 30, 2004. Appeal, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, entered October 30, 2003. The Appellate Division (1) reversed, on the law, a judgment, as amended, of the Supreme Court, Albany County (Louis C. Benza, J.; op 2003 NY Slip Op 51035[U]), entered in a combined proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and action for declaratory judgment, which had denied respondents'

  4. City of New York v. State

    86 N.Y.2d 286 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 112 times
    Observing "extreme reluctance of courts to intrude in the political relationships between the Legislature, the State and its governmental subdivisions"

  5. Matter of Hodes v. Axelrod

    70 N.Y.2d 364 (N.Y. 1987)   Cited 124 times
    Holding that the application of an amended statute permitting the revocation of a nursing home operating certificate based on an operator's industry-related felony convictions does not impair the operator's vested rights, even though the operator had successfully litigated the automatic revocation under the preexisting law

  6. Brothers v. Florence

    95 N.Y.2d 290 (N.Y. 2000)   Cited 79 times
    Holding that it was unreasonable to apply an amended statute of limitations that shortened the time in which to file medical-malpractice claims to a suit that, upon passage of the new statute of limitations, was to be filed within four months rather than within the significantly longer time under the old statute, given the diligent pursuit of the claim by the plaintiff from the time of accrual

  7. Rhem v. Malcolm

    507 F.2d 333 (2d Cir. 1974)   Cited 158 times
    Holding that the imposition of maximum security confinement, including lock-ins that lasted 16 hours per day, violated the due process rights of some pre-trial detainees

  8. James Square Assocs. LP v. Mullen

    2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 3935 (N.Y. 2013)   Cited 41 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In James Sq., the Court concluded that a retroactive period of 16 months “should be considered excessive and weighs against the State” (21 N.Y.3d at 249, 970 N.Y.S.2d 888, 993 N.E.2d 374).

  9. Franza v. Olin

    73 A.D.3d 44 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)   Cited 46 times

    NO. 09-01223. March 19, 2010. APPEAL from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Deborah H. Karalunas, J.), entered January 26, 2009. The judgment declared that plaintiff did not have title to certain real property based on adverse possession pursuant to RPAPL article 5. Hoffmann, Hubert Hoffmann, LLP, Syracuse ( Terrance J. Hoffmann of counsel), for appellant. Mackenzie Hughes LLP, Syracuse ( W. Bradley Hunt of counsel), for respondents. Before: SMITH, J.P., LINDLEY

  10. Paver

    38 N.Y.2d 669 (N.Y. 1976)   Cited 124 times
    Describing how New York courts have historically considered both the claim and remedy in determining the applicable statute of limitations

  11. Section 601.3 - Reimbursement claiming time limits

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 18 § 601.3   Cited 6 times

    Except as otherwise provided, to be eligible for State reimbursement, expenditures for public assistance, care and services, or for any other activity which is subject to reimbursement by the department, must be made within the time limits set forth in this section and must be included in a claim submitted by the social services district to the department for the time period in which such expenditures are claimed to have been made. (a) Claims for expenditures which are subject to reimbursement by