43 Cited authorities

  1. Greenfield v. Philles Records

    98 N.Y.2d 562 (N.Y. 2002)   Cited 1,590 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding a "written agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms"
  2. MHR Capital Partners LP v. Presstek, Inc.

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 5200 (N.Y. 2009)   Cited 246 times
    Holding that language in an escrow agreement stating that contract documents were not to be released “unless and until” a party executed and agreed to a deal on terms outlined in the agreement was an express condition precedent
  3. Bumpus v. New York City Transit Authority

    66 A.D.3d 26 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)   Cited 227 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "an insufficient description subjects the 'Jane Doe' complaint to dismissal for being jurisdictionally defective"
  4. Metropolitan Life v. Noble Lowndes

    84 N.Y.2d 430 (N.Y. 1994)   Cited 198 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding proof that “defendant's repudiation of the Agreement was motivated exclusively by its own economic self-interest” is insufficient to show willful misconduct
  5. Hahn Auto. Warehouse, Inc. v. Am. Zurich Ins. Co.

    2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 2344 (N.Y. 2012)   Cited 117 times
    Assuming there is a right to payment when the party has the contractual right to, and does, demand unconditional payment
  6. John J. Kassner & Co. v. City of New York

    46 N.Y.2d 544 (N.Y. 1979)   Cited 279 times
    Holding that "the cause of action accrues and the Statute of Limitations begins to run from the time of the breach" of a contract
  7. Airco Alloys v. Niagara Corp.

    76 A.D.2d 68 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980)   Cited 252 times
    Noting that estoppel prevents a party from denying its own "admission which has in good faith been accepted and acted upon by another"
  8. Guggenheim Found. v. Lubell

    77 N.Y.2d 311 (N.Y. 1991)   Cited 162 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "although [defendant-]appellant’s Statute of Limitations argument fails, [its] contention that the [plaintiff] did not exercise reasonable diligence in locating the painting" is relevant "in the context of laches defense"
  9. Aetna Life & Casualty Co. v. Nelson

    67 N.Y.2d 169 (N.Y. 1986)   Cited 185 times
    Holding that a claim accrues when "all of the facts necessary to the cause of action have occurred so that the party would be entitled to obtain relief in court"
  10. Duffy v. Horton Mem. Hosp

    66 N.Y.2d 473 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 164 times
    Noting that, ordinarily, the statute of limitations would apply to claims asserted against newly added parties who have "been a complete stranger to the suit up to the point of the requested amendment," but acknowledging that permitting the amendment to relate back to that defendant would not be at odds with the policies underlying the statute of limitations where "within the statutory period, . . . defendant is fully aware that a claim is being made against him with respect to the transaction or occurrence involved in the suit"