40 Cited authorities

  1. Zuckerman v. City of N.Y

    49 N.Y.2d 557 (N.Y. 1980)   Cited 20,756 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Granting summary judgment as the city's arguments were considered speculation and this was "patently inadequate to establish the existence of a factual issue requiring a trial . . ."
  2. Winegrad v. N.Y. Univ. Medical Center

    64 N.Y.2d 851 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 13,228 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Reversing the motion court's order granting the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment where they failed to demonstrate, with admissible proof, that the claims against them should be dismissed
  3. Rotuba Extruders v. Ceppos

    46 N.Y.2d 223 (N.Y. 1978)   Cited 3,167 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Granting summary judgment where "submissions simply lacked the evidentiary facts on which a meritorious defense could be made out"
  4. Sokoloff v. Harriman Estates Dev. Corp.

    96 N.Y.2d 409 (N.Y. 2001)   Cited 930 times
    Reversing dismissal of complaint seeking specific performance against builder
  5. Sillman v. Twentieth Century-Fox

    3 N.Y.2d 395 (N.Y. 1957)   Cited 4,925 times
    Finding that provision prohibited assignments when the provision stated, in part, that "neither party hereto shall assign this agreement . . . without the prior written consent of the other party," and "that [defendant] shall not be required to recognize any assignments; and that if [defendant] shall receive notice of the existence of any assignment, it shall have the right to withhold payments until the assignment is cancelled or withdrawn"
  6. JMD Holding Corp. v. Congress Financial Corp.

    4 N.Y.3d 373 (N.Y. 2005)   Cited 580 times
    Finding that plaintiff was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law where it failed to present evidence that liquidated damages were grossly disproportionate or that actual damages were capable of precise estimation at the time of the agreement's execution.
  7. Fischbarg v. Doucet

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 9962 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 405 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defendants' calls and emails to plaintiff in New York were transactions giving rise to the cause of action
  8. Ostrov v. Rozbruch

    91 A.D.3d 147 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 231 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Ostrov, the First Department held that, in the context of summary judgment, "[s]upplemental affirmations... should be sparingly used to clarify limited issues, and should not be utilized as a matter of course to correct deficiencies in a party's moving or answering papers" (emphasis added).
  9. McGowan v. Smith

    52 N.Y.2d 268 (N.Y. 1981)   Cited 525 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defendant exporter's visits to New York to conduct general marketing research did not "bear a substantial relationship" to products liability action arising from purchase of defendant's product in New York because "[w]hile these visits certainly may be characterized as `purposeful' . . . the occurrence of these visits serves merely to establish [the defendant exporter's] transitory physical presence within the State."
  10. Suffolk County Deptartment of Social Services v. James M.

    83 N.Y.2d 178 (N.Y. 1994)   Cited 323 times
    In James M., the Court of Appeals specifically approved the use of a summary judgment motion in a Family Court Act article 10 proceeding.
  11. Section 5501 - Scope of review

    N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5501   Cited 6,874 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Stating that the “shocks the conscience” standard “was relaxed in 1986 in tort actions, including the common personal injury and wrongful death actions in which additur and remittitur are most often seen”
  12. Section 302 - Personal jurisdiction by acts of non-domiciliaries

    N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 302   Cited 2,982 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that service may be made "to a person of suitable age and discretion at the actual place of business, dwelling place or usual place of abode of the person to be served and by ... mailing the summons to the person to be served at his or her last known residence"
  13. Section 301 - Jurisdiction over persons, property or status

    N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 301   Cited 1,052 times
    Codifying caselaw that incorporates "doing business" standard
  14. Section 1314 - Actions or special proceedings against foreign corporations

    N.Y. Bus. Corp. Law § 1314   Cited 34 times

    (a) An action or special proceeding against a foreign corporation may be maintained by a resident of this state or by a domestic corporation of any type or kind for any cause of action. (b) Except as otherwise provided in this article, an action or special proceeding against a foreign corporation may be maintained by another foreign corporation of any type or kind or by a non-resident in the following cases only: (1) Where it is brought to recover damages for the breach of a contract made or to be