§Why CasetextPricing

Justinian Capital SPC, Appellant,v.WestLB AG,, et al., Respondents.

Brief

26 Cited authorities

  1. SCR Joint Venture L.P. v. Warshawsky

    559 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2009)   Cited 572 times
    Finding that a witness's affidavit stating that he was a former vice president of the defendants' business and was “fully familiar with the facts and circumstances set forth” therein satisfied the requirements of Rule 56

  2. Riley v. County of Broome

    95 N.Y.2d 455 (N.Y. 2000)   Cited 390 times
    Holding that the legislative history of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 evinces an intent to impose “a minimum standard of care” on operators of vehicles engaged in roadwork

  3. People v. Santi

    3 N.Y.3d 234 (N.Y. 2004)   Cited 159 times
    In People v. Santi, 3 N.Y.3d 234, 243, 785 N.Y.S.2d 405, 818 N.E.2d 1146 (2004), the Court of Appeals reaffirmed the long established policy that, " '[i]n implementing a statute, the courts must of necessity examine the purpose of the statute and determine the intention of the Legislature.' " citing, Willams v. Williams, 23 N.Y.2d 592, 598, 298 N.Y.S.2d 473, 246 N.E.2d 333 (1969).

  4. Kriz v. Schum

    75 N.Y.2d 25 (N.Y. 1989)   Cited 192 times
    Holding that "summary judgment is generally appropriate only in those cases where the intervening acts operate upon but do not flow from the original negligence"

  5. Trust Certificate Holders v. Love Funding Corp.

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 7323 (N.Y. 2009)   Cited 73 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding the Plaintiff could not recover as it was assigned a right for the purpose of litigation

  6. Bluebird Partners, L.P. v. First Fidelity Bank, N.A.

    94 N.Y.2d 726 (N.Y. 2000)   Cited 85 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Bluebird Partners, L.P. v. First Fidelity Bank, N.A., 94 N.Y.2d at 735-36, 709 N.Y.S.2d at 871, 731 N.E.2d 581, the New York Court of Appeals recognized the interpretive tension in these precedents.

  7. Jones v. Bill

    10 N.Y.3d 550 (N.Y. 2008)   Cited 57 times
    In Jones v. Bill, 10 N.Y.3d 550, 860 N.Y.S.2d 769, 890 N.E.2d 884 (2008), a case that had not yet been decided when the district court decided the case below, the New York Court of Appeals applied CPLR § 304(a) and held that, for purposes of the Graves Amendment, an action commenced when the complaint was originally filed, not when the lessor was later joined as a defendant with an amended summons and complaint.

  8. Polygram v. Cafaro

    42 A.D.3d 339 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)   Cited 58 times
    Holding that “parol evidence may be offered to show that a writing, although purporting to be a contract, is, in fact, no contract at all” and denying summary judgment because questions of fact existed as to whether note was a “sham transaction”

  9. Elliott Associates, L.P. v. Banco de la Nacion

    194 F.3d 363 (2d Cir. 1999)   Cited 63 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that New York's champerty statute was not violated where the "accused party's primary goal [was] found to be the satisfaction of a valid debt and its intent is only to sue absent full performance"

  10. Tompkins County Support Coll. v. Chamberlin

    99 N.Y.2d 328 (N.Y. 2003)   Cited 52 times
    Construing 42 U.S.C. § 666

  11. Section 489 - Purchase of claims by corporations or collection agencies

    N.Y. Jud. Law § 489   Cited 215 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Containing specific requirement of "with the intent and for the purpose" for champerty defense