§Why CasetextPricing

Lorraine Borden, et al., Respondents,v.400 East 55th Street Associates, L.P., Appellant.

Brief

67 Cited authorities

  1. Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles

    568 U.S. 588 (2013)   Cited 692 times   74 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a plaintiff may not evade CAFA jurisdiction by stipulating that the class would seek damages below CAFA's jurisdictional threshold

  2. Small v. Lorillard Tobacco Co.

    94 N.Y.2d 43 (N.Y. 1999)   Cited 694 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where the underlying tort theory fails, "there is no independent tort to provide a basis for liability under . . . concert of action, conspiracy, and aiding and abetting theories"

  3. Roberts v. Tishman Speyer Properties

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 7480 (N.Y. 2009)   Cited 372 times
    In Roberts, this Court rejected DHCR's long-standing statutory interpretation and concluded that luxury deregulation was unavailable in any building during receipt of J–51 benefits (13 N.Y.3d at 285–287, 890 N.Y.S.2d 388, 918 N.E.2d 900).

  4. Sperry v. Crompton Corp.

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 1425 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 260 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the connection between the purchaser of tires and the producers of chemicals used in the rubbermaking process is simply too attenuated to support" the purchaser's claim of unjust enrichment

  5. Back Doctors Ltd. v. Metropolitan Property

    637 F.3d 827 (7th Cir. 2011)   Cited 157 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that named plaintiffs have fiduciary duties to a putative class before certification

  6. Globe Surgical v. Geico Ins. Co.

    59 A.D.3d 129 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)   Cited 106 times
    Finding a class representative inadequate where he had a history of pursuing his own defenses

  7. Rochester v. Chiarella

    65 N.Y.2d 92 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 198 times

    Argued March 18, 1985 Decided May 2, 1985 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, Robert A. Contiguglia, J. Louis N. Kash, Corporation Counsel, for City of Rochester, appellant. Kenneth A. Payment and A. Paul Britton for subclass A-2, appellants. Byron Johnson for subclass B, appellants. Robert A. Feldman for subclass C, appellants. Douglass Foss, Edward H. Fox and Karl S. Essler for Angelo Chiarella, appellant. Joseph A. Regan for respondents. SIMONS

  8. Drucker v. Mauro

    30 A.D.3d 37 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 92 times
    In Drucker, the parties entered into a lease and rider pursuant to which the plaintiff's rented an apartment from the defendant.

  9. Pesantez v. Boyle Envtl. Servs., Inc.

    251 A.D.2d 11 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)   Cited 99 times
    Holding that forty class members was "many more" than required to satisfy numerosity

  10. Roberts v. Tishman Speyer

    62 A.D.3d 71 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)   Cited 71 times
    Noting that the statutory scheme draws no distinction “based on whether a J–51 property was already subject to regulation prior to the receipt of such benefits”

  11. Section 1332 - Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs

    28 U.S.C. § 1332   Cited 111,248 times   572 Legal Analyses
    Holding district court has jurisdiction over action between diverse citizens "where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000"

  12. Section 349 - Deceptive acts and practices unlawful

    N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349   Cited 4,807 times   106 Legal Analyses
    Granting "any person who has been injured by reason of any violation of this section" the right to "bring an action in his own name"

  13. Section 2520.13 - Waiver of benefit void

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 9 § 2520.13   Cited 47 times

    An agreement by the tenant to waive the benefit of any provision of the RSL or this Code is void; provided, however, that based upon a negotiated settlement between the parties and with the approval of the DHCR, or a court of competent jurisdiction, or where a tenant is represented by counsel, a tenant may withdraw, with prejudice, any complaint pending before the DHCR. Such settlement shall be binding upon subsequent tenants. However, where the settlement encompasses surrender of occupancy by the

  14. Section 600.14 - Motions for reargument or leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 600.14   Cited 22 times

    (a) Reargument. Motions for reargument shall be made within 30 days after the appeal has been decided and shall be submitted without oral argument. The papers in support of the motion shall include a copy of the order entered upon the decision of this court, and shall concisely state the points claimed to have been overlooked or misapprehended by the court, with proper reference to the particular portions of the record and the authorities relied upon. (b) Leave to appeal. Applications for permission