§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

28 Cited authorities

  1. Reiter v. Sonotone Corp.

    442 U.S. 330 (1979)   Cited 1,156 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "injury to business or property" was not limited to commercial interests

  2. Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation

    438 U.S. 726 (1978)   Cited 489 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding agency may regulate offensive speech over radio waves

  3. Leader v. Maroney

    97 N.Y.2d 95 (N.Y. 2001)   Cited 771 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts have discretion to decide whether to extend time to serve for good cause shown or in the interest of justice

  4. Roberts v. Tishman Speyer Properties

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 7480 (N.Y. 2009)   Cited 371 times
    In Roberts, this Court rejected DHCR's long-standing statutory interpretation and concluded that luxury deregulation was unavailable in any building during receipt of J–51 benefits (13 N.Y.3d at 285–287, 890 N.Y.S.2d 388, 918 N.E.2d 900).

  5. 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

  6. Criscione v. City of New York

    97 N.Y.2d 152 (N.Y. 2001)   Cited 123 times
    In Criscione, a police officer was involved in a car accident while responding to a dispatch call to investigate a family dispute.

  7. Washington Post v. Ins Dept

    61 N.Y.2d 557 (N.Y. 1984)   Cited 177 times
    Stating that promises of confidentiality by a state agency do not affect the status of documents as records subject to required disclosure under FOIL, nor do such promises affect the applicability of any exemption under FOIL's provisions

  8. Doctors Council v. Nycers

    71 N.Y.2d 669 (N.Y. 1988)   Cited 148 times
    Noting the statutory protection afforded by Adm. Code §§ 13-104 and 13-101 to all persons in City-service, designed to exclude persons such as independent contractors, remains as important and relevant as when the statute was passed

  9. Cohen v. Lord, Day Lord

    75 N.Y.2d 95 (N.Y. 1989)   Cited 118 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a lawyer possesses a private right of action with which he can seek to invalidate a clause that hampers his ability to practice law

  10. 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

  11. Section 1104 - Convention center hotel unit fee

    N.Y. Tax Law § 1104

    (a) Imposition. In addition to any other fee or tax imposed by this article or any other law, on and after April first, two thousand five, there is hereby imposed within the territorial limits of a city with a population of a million or more and there shall be paid a unit fee on every occupancy of a unit in a hotel in such city at the rate of one dollar and fifty cents per unit per day, except that such unit fee shall not be imposed upon (1) occupancy by a permanent resident or (2) where the rent