34 Cited authorities

  1. American Pipe Construction Co. v. Utah

    414 U.S. 538 (1974)   Cited 1,818 times   153 Legal Analyses
    Holding the commencement of a class action "suspends the applicable statute of limitations as to all asserted members of the class who would have been parties had the suit been permitted to continue as a class action"
  2. Small v. Lorillard Tobacco Co.

    94 N.Y.2d 43 (N.Y. 1999)   Cited 607 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where the underlying tort theory fails, "there is no independent tort to provide a basis for liability under . . . concert of action, conspiracy, and aiding and abetting theories"
  3. Dole v. Dow Chemical Co.

    30 N.Y.2d 143 (N.Y. 1972)   Cited 718 times
    Holding that liability should be apportioned among joint tortfeasors according to relative fault
  4. Rochester v. Chiarella

    65 N.Y.2d 92 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 160 times

    Argued March 18, 1985 Decided May 2, 1985 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, Robert A. Contiguglia, J. Louis N. Kash, Corporation Counsel, for City of Rochester, appellant. Kenneth A. Payment and A. Paul Britton for subclass A-2, appellants. Byron Johnson for subclass B, appellants. Robert A. Feldman for subclass C, appellants. Douglass Foss, Edward H. Fox and Karl S. Essler for Angelo Chiarella, appellant. Joseph A. Regan for respondents. SIMONS

  5. Pruitt v. Rockefeller Ctr. Props., Inc.

    167 A.D.2d 14 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)   Cited 125 times

    May 21, 1991 Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County, Carol H. Arber, J. Sidney B. Silverman of counsel (Silverman, Harnes Obstfeld, attorneys), for appellant. Russell E. Brooks of counsel (Melanie L. Cyganowski and Steven T. Potts with him on the brief; Milbank, Tweed, Hadley McCloy, attorneys), for Rockefeller Center Properties, Inc., and others, respondents. Marvin Schwartz of counsel (Steven L. Holley with him on the brief; Sullivan Cromwell, attorneys), for Goldman, Sachs and Co. and

  6. Shah v. Wilco Systems, Inc.

    27 A.D.3d 169 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 79 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Granting summary judgment on NYCHRL disparate pay claim and holding that "where the claim is based on disparate pay, a plaintiff must first set forth a prima facie case of discrimination, i.e., that he is a member of a protected class and that he was paid less than similarly-situated non-members of the class"
  7. Brady v. Ottaway Newspapers

    63 N.Y.2d 1031 (N.Y. 1984)   Cited 75 times

    Argued October 17, 1984 Decided November 20, 1984 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, Abraham Isseks, J. Joseph Sluzar for defendants-appellants. Peter E. Bloom for plaintiffs-appellants. Robert Abrams, Attorney-General ( Jeffrey I. Slonim, Peter H. Schiff and Howard L. Zwickel of counsel), for respondent. MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. In this action for damages for libel, plaintiffs and defendants

  8. Colt Indus Shareholder Litig

    155 A.D.2d 154 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)   Cited 58 times   8 Legal Analyses

    April 3, 1990. Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County, Diane A. Lebedeff, J. Robert L. Beerman of counsel (Charles W. German, W. Perry Brandt and John J. Miller with him on the brief; Beerman Wadler, and Stinson, Mag Fizzell, attorneys), for appellant. Seth M. Schwartz of counsel (Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher Flom, attorneys), for respondents. ROSS, J. The primary issue to be resolved on this appeal is under what circumstances can an out-of-State resident, who has no contacts with New York

  9. O'Hara v. Del Bello

    47 N.Y.2d 363 (N.Y. 1979)   Cited 80 times
    Requiring the person who commences a class action to move for permission to maintain the action as a class action within 60 days after the time for service of a responsive pleading has expired.
  10. Rodriguez v. Met. Cable Com

    79 A.D.3d 841 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)   Cited 23 times

    No. 2010-02914. December 14, 2010. In a putative class action to recover damages for violations of Labor Law article 19, the defendant Metropolitan Cable Communications appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lebowitz, J.), dated February 25, 2010, which denied its motion for a protective order striking certain interrogatories and document requests. Arnold Davis, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Asher, Gaughran, LLP, Katonah, N.Y. (Rachel Asher of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent

  11. Section 5501 - Scope of review

    N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5501   Cited 6,874 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Stating that the “shocks the conscience” standard “was relaxed in 1986 in tort actions, including the common personal injury and wrongful death actions in which additur and remittitur are most often seen”
  12. Section 5602 - Appeals to the court of appeals by permission

    N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5602   Cited 1,087 times
    Discussing appeals by permission to New York Court of Appeals
  13. Section 901 - Prerequisites to a class action

    N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 901   Cited 781 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Providing that "an action to recover a penalty, or minimum measure of recovery created or imposed by statute may not be maintained as a class action" unless the "statute creating or imposing penalty, or minimum measure of recovery specifically authorizes the recovery thereof in a class action"
  14. Section 902 - Order allowing class action

    N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 902   Cited 404 times

    Within sixty days after the time to serve a responsive pleading has expired for all persons named as defendants in an action brought as a class action, the plaintiff shall move for an order to determine whether it is to be so maintained. An order under this section may be conditional, and may be altered or amended before the decision on the merits on the court's own motion or on motion of the parties. The action may be maintained as a class action only if the court finds that the prerequisites under

  15. Section 5713 - Content of order granting permission to appeal to court of appeals

    N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5713   Cited 257 times

    When the appellate division grants permission to appeal to the court of appeals, its order granting such permission shall state that questions of law have arisen which in its opinion ought to be reviewed. When the appeal is from a non-final order, the order granting such permission shall also state that the findings of fact have been affirmed, or reversed or modified and new findings of fact made, or have not been considered, shall specify the findings of fact which have been reversed or modified

  16. Section 500.13 - Content and form of briefs in normal course appeals

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 500.13

    (a) Content. All briefs shall conform to the requirements of section 500.1 of this Part and contain a table of contents, a table of cases and authorities, questions presented, point headings, and, if necessary, a disclosure statement pursuant to section 500.1(f) of this Part. Such disclosure statement shall be included before the table of contents in the party's principal brief. Appellant's brief shall include a statement showing that the court has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and to review