§Why CasetextPricing

Rosemarie A. Herman,, et al., Respondents, Avon Bard LLC, et al., Plaintiffs,v.Julian Maurice Herman, et al., Appellants, Michael Offit, et al., Defendants. (And a Third-Party Action.)

Brief

23 Cited authorities

  1. Mathews v. Eldridge

    424 U.S. 319 (1976)   Cited 15,744 times   42 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a procedure based on written submissions was adequate because it included safeguards against mistake including that the agency informed the recipient of its tentative assessment and the evidence supporting it and an opportunity was then afforded the recipient to submit additional evidence "enabling him to challenge directly the accuracy of information in his file as well as the correctness of the agency's tentative conclusions"

  2. Fuentes v. Shevin

    407 U.S. 67 (1972)   Cited 3,415 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that disputed possessory interest in personal property is a protected property interest

  3. Gardner v. Florida

    430 U.S. 349 (1977)   Cited 1,543 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a capital defendant's due process rights were violated because he was sentenced without being provided access to information relevant to the trial court's sentencing decision

  4. Lama Holding Co. v. Smith Barney Inc.

    88 N.Y.2d 413 (N.Y. 1996)   Cited 2,155 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that damages that are "undeterminable" or speculative cannot serve as the basis of a fraud claim

  5. Roberts v. Tishman Speyer Properties

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 7480 (N.Y. 2009)   Cited 373 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).

  6. Mendoza v. Highpoint Associates, IX, LLC

    83 A.D.3d 1 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 311 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Mendoza v Highpoint Assoc., IX, LLC (83 A.D.3d 1, 5 [1st Dept 2011]), a particularly instructive case, the trial court issued a self-executing order that provided that the defendant's failure to produce a witness for a deposition would result in preclusion of evidence at trial as to liability.

  7. Gibbs v. St. Barnabas Hosp

    16 N.Y.3d 74 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 304 times
    In Gibbs (16 NY3d 74), where plaintiff's counsel violated a conditional preclusion order by failing to supply a bill of particulars and did not establish good cause for the delay and a meritorious claim, we held that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to order preclusion.

  8. Schwartz v. Public Administrator

    24 N.Y.2d 65 (N.Y. 1969)   Cited 933 times
    Finding that mutuality is not required for collateral estoppel, as long as the party against whom the doctrine is invoked has had a full opportunity to litigate the issue

  9. Gleich v. Gritsipis

    87 A.D.3d 216 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 111 times
    Holding that a cause of action for unjust enrichment is "not for a sum certain and, therefore, [is] not eligible for the entry of a clerk's judgment" under New York's Civil Practice Law and Rules

  10. Amusement Business Underwriters v. Am. Int'l Group

    66 N.Y.2d 878 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 191 times
    Stating that defaulting defendant who admits all traversable allegations in complaint does not admit plaintiff's conclusion of damages and may, at damages inquest, offer proof in mitigation of damages involving circumstances intrinsic to transactions at issue in complaint