44 Cited authorities

  1. Negri v. Stop and Shop, Inc.

    65 N.Y.2d 625 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 615 times
    Holding that circumstantial evidence that broken jars of baby food were on the floor for fifteen to twenty minutes tended to show that supermarket had constructive notice of the dangerous condition
  2. Simonds v. Simonds

    45 N.Y.2d 233 (N.Y. 1978)   Cited 510 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an interest obtained through an agreement supported by consideration “is superior to that of a named beneficiary who has given no consideration”
  3. Zanett Lombardier, Ltd. v. Maslow

    29 A.D.3d 495 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 194 times
    Dismissing misrepresentation claim because, inter alia, “plaintiffs, as sophisticated investors, [could not] validly claim justifiable reliance ... as they could have discovered the underlying condition and true nature of both companies by ordinary intelligence or with reasonable investigation”
  4. Brown v. Lockwood

    76 A.D.2d 721 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980)   Cited 318 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that "a fiduciary or confidential relationship warrant the trusting party to repose his confidence in the defendant"
  5. Messner Vetere Berger McNamee Schmetterer Euro RSCG Inc. v. Aegis Group plc

    93 N.Y.2d 229 (N.Y. 1999)   Cited 168 times
    Stating that "the conduct of the entity seeking to enforce the Statute of Frauds is always irrelevant."
  6. Stuart Silver Associates, Inc. v. Baco Development Corp.

    245 A.D.2d 96 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)   Cited 149 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "where `a party has the means to discover the true nature of the transaction by the exercise of ordinary intelligence and fails to make use of those means, he cannot claim justifiable reliance on defendant's misrepresentations.'"
  7. Meinhard v. Salmon

    249 N.Y. 458 (N.Y. 1928)   Cited 1,119 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding a co-venturer breached his duty of loyalty when he extended the lease on commercial property and excluded his co-venturer from the opportunity
  8. Levin v. Kitsis

    82 A.D.3d 1051 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 91 times
    In Levin, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant husband and wife "improperly assigned, without consideration, a consolidated mortgage interest to L'Esperanza, a corporation owned and controlled by their daughter, Anna Kitsis.
  9. Martin v. City of Albany

    42 N.Y.2d 13 (N.Y. 1977)   Cited 214 times
    Holding that actual malice is typically shown by circumstantial evidence, including a lack of probable cause
  10. In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc.

    756 F.3d 754 (D.C. Cir. 2014)   Cited 69 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when "a given communication plainly has multiple purposes," the appropriate test is whether "obtaining or providing legal advice [was] a primary purpose of the communication, meaning one of the significant purposes of the communication."
  11. Section 10-9.2 - Release of a power of appointment

    N.Y. Est. Powers & Trusts Law § 10-9.2   Cited 2 times

    (a) Any power of appointment, whether exercisable only by deed, only by will, or by either deed or will, and whether general or special, exclusive or nonexclusive other than a power which is imperative, is releasable, either with or without consideration, by written instrument signed by the donee of such power and delivered as hereinafter provided. (b) A releasable power of appointment may be released with respect to all or any part of the appointive property and may also be released in such manner