61 Cited authorities

Brill v. City of New York
2 N.Y.3d 648 (N.Y. 2004) Cited 1,617 times
Holding that the movant must provide courts with a satisfactory explanation for missing CPLR 3212 deadlines
Fischbarg v. Doucet
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 9962 (N.Y. 2007) Cited 550 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that defendants' calls and emails to plaintiff in New York were transactions giving rise to the cause of action
Kreutter v. McFadden Oil Corp.
71 N.Y.2d 460 (N.Y. 1988) Cited 944 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that to establish jurisdiction under section 302, the plaintiff was not required to "establish a formal agency relationship between [the foreign] defendants and [the alleged agent]"; instead, the plaintiff needed only to "convince the court that [the alleged agent] engaged in purposeful activities in [New York] in relation to his transaction for the benefit of and with the knowledge and consent of the [foreign] defendants and that they exercised some control over [the alleged agent] in the matter"
Allen v. Crowell-Collier Pub. Co.
21 N.Y.2d 403 (N.Y. 1968) Cited 1,965 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[t]he words, "material and necessary", are . . . to be interpreted liberally to require disclosure, upon request, of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity"
Kihl v. Pfeffer
94 N.Y.2d 118 (N.Y. 1999) Cited 599 times 2 Legal Analyses
Affirming trial court's striking of complaint where plaintiff failed to correct initial interrogatory responses that were "not responsive" and "lack[ed] any reasonable detail"
Deutsche Bank Sec. v. Montana Bd. of Inv.
7 N.Y.3d 65 (N.Y. 2006) Cited 418 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that "long-arm jurisdiction" arising from the in-state transaction of business can lie "over commercial actors and investors using electronic and telephonic means to project themselves into New York"
Spectrum Sys. Int'l Corp. v. Chem. Bank
78 N.Y.2d 371 (N.Y. 1991) Cited 590 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that the document at issue was exempt from discovery where "the narration relate[d] and integrate[d] the facts with the law firm's assessment of the client's legal position"
Gibbs v. St. Barnabas Hosp
16 N.Y.3d 74 (N.Y. 2010) Cited 304 times
In Gibbs (16 NY3d 74), where plaintiff's counsel violated a conditional preclusion order by failing to supply a bill of particulars and did not establish good cause for the delay and a meritorious claim, we held that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to order preclusion.
Andon v. 302-304 Mott Street Associates
94 N.Y.2d 740 (N.Y. 2000) Cited 401 times
Holding that the "Appellate Division did not abuse its discretion in holding that [a doctor's] affidavit — on which defendants' request was based — was insufficient to justify compelling plaintiff-mother to take an IQ test"
First Bank v. Motor Car
257 A.D.2d 287 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999) Cited 391 times
Holding that fraudulent inducement claim may be based on allegations that a defendant made "a misrepresentation of present facts is collateral to the contract (though it may have induced the plaintiff to sign the contract) and therefore involves a separate breach of a duty"
Section 487 - Misconduct by attorneys
N.Y. Jud. Law § 487 Cited 1,181 times 2 Legal Analyses
Providing for civil liability where an attorney "[i]s guilty of deceit or collusion . . . with intent to deceive the court or any party . . ."

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated, et al., Respondents,v.Global Strat Inc.,, et al., Defendants, Ezequiel Nasser, et al., Appellants.

61 Cited authorities

Holding that the movant must provide courts with a satisfactory explanation for missing CPLR 3212 deadlines

Holding that defendants' calls and emails to plaintiff in New York were transactions giving rise to the cause of action

Holding that "[t]he words, "material and necessary", are . . . to be interpreted liberally to require disclosure, upon request, of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity"

Affirming trial court's striking of complaint where plaintiff failed to correct initial interrogatory responses that were "not responsive" and "lack[ed] any reasonable detail"

Holding that "long-arm jurisdiction" arising from the in-state transaction of business can lie "over commercial actors and investors using electronic and telephonic means to project themselves into New York"

Holding that the document at issue was exempt from discovery where "the narration relate[d] and integrate[d] the facts with the law firm's assessment of the client's legal position"

In Gibbs (16 NY3d 74), where plaintiff's counsel violated a conditional preclusion order by failing to supply a bill of particulars and did not establish good cause for the delay and a meritorious claim, we held that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to order preclusion.

Holding that the "Appellate Division did not abuse its discretion in holding that [a doctor's] affidavit — on which defendants' request was based — was insufficient to justify compelling plaintiff-mother to take an IQ test"

Holding that fraudulent inducement claim may be based on allegations that a defendant made "a misrepresentation of present facts is collateral to the contract (though it may have induced the plaintiff to sign the contract) and therefore involves a separate breach of a duty"

Providing for civil liability where an attorney "[i]s guilty of deceit or collusion . . . with intent to deceive the court or any party . . ."