29 Cited authorities

  1. Reiter v. Sonotone Corp.

    442 U.S. 330 (1979)   Cited 987 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 465 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 613 times   1 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 285 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 NY3d at 285-287).
  5. Samiento v. World Yacht Inc.

    2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 1258 (N.Y. 2008)   Cited 212 times   8 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 99 times
    In Criscione, a police officer was involved in a car accident while responding to a dispatch call to investigate a family dispute.
  7. Doctors Council v. Nycers

    71 N.Y.2d 669 (N.Y. 1988)   Cited 143 times

    Argued April 21, 1988 Decided May 31, 1988 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Arthur E. Blyn, J. Richard M. Betheil and Ronald H. Schechtman for appellants. Peter L. Zimroth, Corporation Counsel (Barry P. Schwartz and Fay Leoussis of counsel), for respondents. Robert Perez-Wilson and Joel Giller for Stanley Hill, amicus curiae. BELLACOSA, J. We agree with the views expressed in the dissent at the Appellate Division that the pertinent statute

  8. Washington Post v. Ins Dept

    61 N.Y.2d 557 (N.Y. 1984)   Cited 158 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
  9. Cohen v. Lord, Day Lord

    75 N.Y.2d 95 (N.Y. 1989)   Cited 103 times
    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 60 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 1109 - Sales and compensating use taxes for the metropolitan commuter transportation district

    N.Y. Tax Law § 1109   Cited 2 times

    (a) General. In addition to the taxes imposed by sections eleven hundred five and eleven hundred ten of this article, there is hereby imposed within the territorial limits of the metropolitan commuter transportation district created and established pursuant to section twelve hundred sixty-two of the public authorities law, and there shall be paid, additional taxes, at the rate of three-eighths of one percent, which shall be identical to the taxes imposed by sections eleven hundred five and eleven

  12. 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