§Why CasetextPricing

Expedia, Inc., et al., Respondents, Priceline.com Incorporated, et al., Plaintiffs,v.The City of New York Department of Finance, et al., Appellants.

Brief

26 Cited authorities

  1. Samiento v. World Yacht Inc.

    2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 1258 (N.Y. 2008)   Cited 280 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Affirming dismissal of the plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim because such an action does not lie where the plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law

  2. ATM ONE v. LANDAVERDE

    2 N.Y.3d 472 (N.Y. 2004)   Cited 140 times
    Holding that service is deemed complete upon mailing, an affidavit of service will raise a presumption that proper mailing occurred, and mere denial of receipt is not enough to deny this presumption

  3. Nostrom v. A.W. Chesterton Co.

    2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 8385 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 66 times
    Holding that "owners and contractors may be vicariously liable based on violations of part 23 regulations."

  4. 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

  5. BLF Realty Holding Corp. v. Kasher

    299 A.D.2d 87 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)   Cited 53 times
    In Kasher, the Court interpreted the interplay between the Rent Stabilization Law and Code and the Loft Law involving sublet situations.

  6. People v. Cook

    34 N.Y.2d 100 (N.Y. 1974)   Cited 100 times
    Finding that a New York City law requiring vendors to vary the prices of cigarettes based on tar and nicotine content was a valid exercise of its delegated police powers to promote health because the law has a “reasonable relation” to health

  7. Debevoise v. N Y Dept of Fin

    80 N.Y.2d 657 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 32 times

    Argued January 7, 1993 Decided February 11, 1993 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Beverly S. Cohen, J. Robert Abrams, Attorney-General, New York City (Laura M. Nath, Jerry Boone and Frederic L. Lieberman of counsel), for appellants. Debevoise Plimpton, New York City (Andrew C. Hartzell, John S. Kiernan and Robert D. Goodman of counsel), respondent pro se. O. Peter Sherwood, Corporation Counsel of New York City (Edward F.X. Hart and Frances

  8. People v Rice

    44 A.D.3d 247 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)   Cited 14 times

    No. 249. August 23, 2007. APPEAL from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (James A. Yates, J.), entered on or about February 2, 2006. The order granted defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence. People v Rice, 11 Misc 3d 539, reversed. Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York City ( Patricia Stolfi and Patrick J. Hynes of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Luis Diaz, New York City ( Donald Yannella of counsel), for respondent. WILLIAMS, BUCKLEY and CATTERSON, JJ., concur

  9. Matter of Plato's Cave Corp. v. State Liq. Auth

    68 N.Y.2d 791 (N.Y. 1986)   Cited 38 times

    Decided September 11, 1986 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Irma V. Santaella, J. Monroe I. Katcher, II, for appellant. Gloria M. Dabiri for respondents. MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. Petitioner argues that the State Liquor Authority (SLA) improperly relied upon definitions in the Penal Law in holding that it permitted "gambling" on its premises in violation of Alcoholic Beverage Control Law

  10. People v. Pagan

    76 A.D.3d 414 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)   Cited 6 times

    No. 1973. August 10, 2010. Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Denis J. Boyle, J.), entered on or about January 29, 2009, which enlarged the conditions of defendant's sentence of probation to permit searches of his home, concomitant with home visits by the Department of Probation (DOP), affirmed. The Legal Aid Society, New York (Steven B. Wasserman of counsel), for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Cheryl Payer of counsel), for respondent. Before: Saxe, J.P., DeGrasse

  11. Section 500.1 - General requirements

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 500.1   Cited 1 times

    (a) All papers shall comply with applicable statutes and rules, particularly the signing requirement of section 130-1.1 -a of this Title. (b) Papers filed. Papers filed means briefs, papers submitted pursuant to sections 500.10 and 500.11 of this Part, motion papers, records and appendices. (c) Method of reproduction. All papers filed may be reproduced by any method that produces a permanent, legible, black image on white paper. Reproduction on both sides of the paper is encouraged. (d) Designation