§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of Viola Dial, Respondent,v.John Rhea,, Appellant, 690 Gates, LP, Respondent.

Brief

61 Cited authorities

  1. Greenfield v. Philles Records

    98 N.Y.2d 562 (N.Y. 2002)   Cited 1,916 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding a "written agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms"

  2. Zumpano v. Quinn

    2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 1245 (N.Y. 2006)   Cited 415 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a party must establish "subsequent and specific actions by defendants somehow kept them from timely bringing suit"

  3. Mountain View Coach v. Storms

    102 A.D.2d 663 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)   Cited 456 times
    Holding that plaintiff who did not hire a substitute bus but rather used one of its reserves could still recover for loss of use

  4. In re Best Payphones v. Dept. of Info. Tech.

    5 N.Y.3d 30 (N.Y. 2005)   Cited 244 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing a policy reason for abbreviated time frames applicable to CPLR article 78 proceedings that "the operation of government agencies should not be unnecessarily clouded by potential litigation"

  5. Riverside South Planning Corp. v. CRP/Extell Riverside

    60 A.D.3d 61 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)   Cited 191 times
    Noting that a contract is ambiguous "if the provisions in controversy are reasonably or fairly susceptible of different interpretations or may have two or more different meanings"

  6. Solnick v. Whalen

    49 N.Y.2d 224 (N.Y. 1980)   Cited 408 times
    Holding that the plaintiffs could challenge the downward revision of their Medicaid reimbursement rates in “a proceeding instituted pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review the determination made by the State agency.”

  7. In re Westmoreland Coal Co. v. Entech, Inc.

    100 N.Y.2d 352 (N.Y. 2003)   Cited 197 times
    Holding claims that seller breached representations and warranties that its closing balance sheet was prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP were subject to resolution by the courts, not arbitration

  8. First National Stores, Inc. v. Yellowstone Shopping Center, Inc.

    21 N.Y.2d 630 (N.Y. 1968)   Cited 544 times   5 Legal Analyses
    In Yellowstone, the Court of Appeals addressed a controversy between a commercial tenant and landlord over the tenant's alleged default under the lease by failing to install a sprinkler system on the premises.

  9. Two Guys v. S.F.R. Realty Associates

    63 N.Y.2d 396 (N.Y. 1984)   Cited 288 times
    Recognizing that New York courts interpreting contracts should "avoid an interpretation that would leave contractual clauses meaningless"

  10. Nassau Insurance Company v. Murray

    46 N.Y.2d 828 (N.Y. 1978)   Cited 328 times
    Applying New York law

  11. Section 202.48 - Submission of orders, judgments and decrees for signature

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 202.48   Cited 403 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) Proposed orders or judgments, with proof of service on all parties where the order is directed to be settled or submitted on notice, must be submitted for signature, unless otherwise directed by the court, within 60 days after the signing and filing of the decision directing that the order be settled or submitted. (b) Failure to submit the order or judgment timely shall be deemed an abandonment of the motion or action, unless for good cause shown. (c) (1) When settlement of an order or judgment

  12. Section 982.311 - When assistance is paid

    24 C.F.R. § 982.311   Cited 29 times
    Requiring a PHA to continue to make HAP payments "in accordance with the HAP contract" to an owner seeking to evict a tenant "until the owner has obtained a court judgment or other process allowing the owner to evict the tenant"

  13. Section 982.455 - Automatic termination of HAP contract

    24 C.F.R. § 982.455   Cited 9 times

    The HAP contract terminates automatically 180 calendar days after the last housing assistance payment to the owner. 24 C.F.R. §982.455 64 FR 26647, May 14, 1999

  14. Section 985.107 - Required actions for PHA with troubled performance rating

    24 C.F.R. § 985.107

    (a)On-site reviews - (1)Required reviews for troubled PHAs. Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, HUD will conduct an on-site review of PHA program management for any PHA assigned an overall performance rating of troubled to assess the magnitude and seriousness of the PHA's noncompliance with performance requirements. (2)On-site reviews for small PHAs. Notwithstanding paragraph (a)(1) of this section, HUD may elect not to conduct an on-site review of a troubled PHA, if: (i) The

  15. Section 985.3 - Indicators, HUD verification methods and ratings

    24 C.F.R. § 985.3

    This section states the performance indicators that are used to assess PHA Section 8 management. HUD will use the verification method identified for each indicator in reviewing the accuracy of an PHA's annual SEMAP certification. HUD will prepare a SEMAP profile for each PHA and will assign a rating for each indicator as shown. If the HUD verification method for the indicator relies on data in MTCS and HUD determines those data are insufficient to verify the PHA's certification on the indicator due