§Why CasetextPricing

Mashreqbank PSC, Appellant,v.Ahmed Hamad A1 Gosaibi & Brothers Company, Respondent.---------------------------------Ahmed Hamad Al Gosaibi & Brothers Company, Third-Party Respondent, v. Maan Abdul Waheed Al Sanea, Third-Party Appellant, Awal Bank BSC, Third-Party Defendant.

Brief

10 Cited authorities

  1. D'Ambrosio v. City of New York

    55 N.Y.2d 454 (N.Y. 1982)   Cited 260 times
    In D'Ambrosio, however, this court abrogated the "special benefit" rule and held that the City could not seek common-law indemnification from the adjacent landowner for "trip and fall" damages resulting from a poorly maintained sidewalk appurtenance, at least in the absence of an undertaking by the property owner "to repair for the benefit of the municipality" (55 N.Y.2d, at 463, supra).

  2. Duffy v. Horton Mem. Hosp

    66 N.Y.2d 473 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 179 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that, ordinarily, the statute of limitations would apply to claims asserted against newly added parties who have "been a complete stranger to the suit up to the point of the requested amendment," but acknowledging that permitting the amendment to relate back to that defendant would not be at odds with the policies underlying the statute of limitations where "within the statutory period, . . . defendant is fully aware that a claim is being made against him with respect to the transaction or occurrence involved in the suit"

  3. Banco Ambrosiano v. Artoc Bank

    62 N.Y.2d 65 (N.Y. 1984)   Cited 169 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding sufficient contacts to support personal jurisdiction based on foreign defendant's consent to be paid in United States dollars put into a New York account and on prior routine conduct of exchange deals

  4. Sirius America Insurance Co. v. Vigo Construction Corp.

    48 A.D.3d 450 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)   Cited 30 times
    In Sirius America Ins. Co. v Vigo Constr. Corp. (48 AD3d 450, 452 [2d Dept 2008]), the Court held that absent an explanation for a disclaimer delay, a 34-day delay in disclaiming coverage "was unreasonable as a matter of law and thus ineffective."

  5. Banco do Estado de Sao Paulo S.A. v. Mendes Junior International Co.

    249 A.D.2d 137 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)   Cited 44 times

    April 21, 1998 Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.). Although the motion court did not address the viability of defendants' fraudulent inducement defense, we note that the guaranty in the integrated loan documents was both "absolute and unconditional" and was enforceable "irrespective of * * * any other circumstances which might constitute a defense" and, accordingly, was "not [to be] affected or discharged by the unenforceability for any reason" of the loan agreement

  6. Mahmood v. Gutman

    81 A.D.3d 792 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 8 times

    Nos. 2010-00088, 2010-00838. February 15, 2011. In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), entered October 29, 2009, which granted the third-party defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint, and (2) a judgment of the same court entered December 7, 2009, which, upon the order, is in favor of the third-party defendant and against the defendants/third-party plaintiffs

  7. VSL Corp. v. Dunes Hotels & Casinos, Inc.

    70 N.Y.2d 948 (N.Y. 1988)   Cited 18 times
    Holding that "a court does not have the authority to invoke the doctrine [of forum non conveniens] on its own motion"

  8. Eric Daniels v. City of New York

    855 N.E.2d 1168 (N.Y. 2006)

    No. 709. Submitted June 26, 2006. Decided September 12, 2006. Appeal from the Reported below, 28 AD3d 415. Motion, insofar as made by Robin Daniels for leave to appeal, dismissed upon the ground that Robin Daniels, having not appealed to the Appellate Division, is not a party aggrieved (see Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals § 11:9, at 393 [rev 3d ed 2005]); motion, insofar as made by Eric Daniels for leave to appeal, denied.

  9. In re Miller

    237 A.D.2d 294 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)   Cited 1 times

    March 3, 1997. In two related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 to modify custody, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Spitz, J.), entered August 14, 1995, which sua sponte dismissed the petitions on the ground of forum non conveniens. Before: Rosenblatt, J.P., Thompson, Santucci and Altman, JJ. Ordered that the order is reversed, as a matter of discretion, with costs, and the petitions are reinstated. This custody matter was initially commenced

  10. Imperial Imports Co. v. Hugo Neu & Sons, Inc.

    161 A.D.2d 411 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)   Cited 4 times
    In Imperial Imports, third-party defendant Hanover Warehouses, a New Jersey corporation, moved to dismiss the entire New York action.