§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of H. Kenneth Ranftle,, Deceased. <br />---------------------------------<br /> Ronald J. Ranftle, Appellant, J. Craig Leiby, Respondent.

Brief

24 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Windsor

    570 U.S. 744 (2013)   Cited 685 times   93 Legal Analyses
    Holding unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment a federal law recognizing opposite-sex-sex but not same-sex marriages because its "principal purpose [was] to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency"

  2. Thoreson v. Penthouse Intl

    80 N.Y.2d 490 (N.Y. 1992)   Cited 428 times
    Relying on expressio unius, statutory language, and legislative history to foreclose expansion of listed damages remedies

  3. Windsor v. United States

    699 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2012)   Cited 184 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Baker was not controlling as to constitutionality of DOMA, reasoning in part that “[i]n the forty years after Baker, there have been manifold changes to the Supreme Court's equal protection jurisprudence” that would warrant an exception to the general rule

  4. Cannon v. Putnam

    76 N.Y.2d 644 (N.Y. 1990)   Cited 183 times
    In Cannon, "the defendant decided to have a free standing floodlight installed on his property to illuminate his front yard and its two artificial ponds."

  5. Matter of Rothko

    43 N.Y.2d 305 (N.Y. 1977)   Cited 239 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where it is impossible to appraise damages with certainty, the Surrogate "had the right to resort to reasonable conjectures and probable estimates and to make the best approximation possible through the exercise of good judgment and common sense in arriving at that amount"

  6. Bingham v. New York City Transit Auth.

    99 N.Y.2d 355 (N.Y. 2003)   Cited 75 times

    13 Argued January 14, 2003. Decided February 20, 2003. APPEAL, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, entered October 30, 2001, which affirmed an order of the Supreme Court (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered in New York County, granting a motion by defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Constantine P. Kokkoris, for appellant. Lawrence Heisler, for respondents. Judges Smith, Ciparick, Wesley

  7. Gletzer v. Harris

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 3763 (N.Y. 2009)   Cited 55 times
    Holding that a renewal judgment initiated by a judgment creditor after the initial judgment lien had lapsed was effective only from the date of the renewal judgment, and not nunc pro tunc from the date the initial judgment lien lapsed

  8. In re Poldrugovaz

    50 A.D.3d 117 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)   Cited 28 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming the lower court's grant of a pretrial order for posthumous genetic marker testing of a deceased man whose alleged child wanted to prove paternity for inheritance rights

  9. In the Matter of Fernandez v. Monegro

    10 A.D.3d 429 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)   Cited 27 times

    2004-07112 Decided August 19, 2004. In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102 to invalidate a petition designating Abner O. Monegro as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 14, 2004, for the Democratic Party position of Assembly District Leader (Male) for the 35th Assembly District, Part B, Abner O. Monegro appeals from a final order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O'Donoghue, J.), dated August 11, 2004, which granted the petition and invalidated the designating petition

  10. Gletzer v. Harris

    51 A.D.3d 196 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)   Cited 20 times

    March 13, 2008. APPEAL from orders of the Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered February 15, 2005 and June 26, 2007. The order entered February 15, 2005 confirmed a referee's report on personal jurisdiction and granted plaintiff Morris I. Geltzer's motion for summary judgment renewing his 1991 judgment lien against defendant Amos Harris as of October 23, 2001. The order entered June 26, 2007 denied an application by petitioners Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. and Copplestone

  11. Section 5501 - Scope of review

    N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5501   Cited 7,258 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 500.11 - Alternative procedure for selected appeals

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 500.11   Cited 541 times

    (a) On its own motion, the court may review selected appeals by an alternative procedure. Such appeals shall be determined on the intermediate appellate court record or appendix and briefs, the writings in the courts below and additional letter submissions on the merits. The clerk of the court shall notify all parties by letter when an appeal has been selected for review pursuant to this section. Appellant may request such review in its preliminary appeal statement. Respondent may request such review