§Why CasetextPricing

Anita Chanko,, et al., Appellants,v.American Broadcasting Companies Inc., et al., Respondents, Anil S. Ranawat, et al., Defendants.

Brief

32 Cited authorities

  1. Leon v. Martinez

    84 N.Y.2d 83 (N.Y. 1994)   Cited 9,619 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the allegations in the complaint and the supporting affidavits were adequate to withstand a motion to dismiss

  2. Goshen v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of New York

    98 N.Y.2d 314 (N.Y. 2002)   Cited 3,372 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that disclaimers "do not establish a defense as a matter of law"

  3. Guggenheimer v. Ginzburg

    43 N.Y.2d 268 (N.Y. 1977)   Cited 4,070 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Reversing grant of motion to dismiss

  4. Howell v. New York Post Co.

    81 N.Y.2d 115 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 1,429 times
    Holding that the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress are: " extreme and outrageous conduct; intent to cause, or disregard of a substantial probability of causing, severe emotional distress; a causal connection between the conduct and injury; and severe emotional distress."

  5. Murphy v. American Home Prod

    58 N.Y.2d 293 (N.Y. 1983)   Cited 1,847 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the limitation period for commencing a judicial action for unlawful discrimination in employment is the three-year period of N YCiv.Prac.L. R. § 214

  6. Small v. Lorillard Tobacco Co.

    94 N.Y.2d 43 (N.Y. 1999)   Cited 694 times   7 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"

  7. Amsterdam Hospitality Group, LLC v. Marshall-Alan Associates, Inc.

    120 A.D.3d 431 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)   Cited 297 times   3 Legal Analyses

    2014-08-28 AMSTERDAM HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. MARSHALL–ALAN ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant–Appellant. Ohrenstein & Brown, LLP, Garden City (Cherice P. Vanderhall of counsel), for appellant. Cozen O'Connor, New York (Michael C. Schmidt of counsel), for respondent. SWEENY Ohrenstein & Brown, LLP, Garden City (Cherice P. Vanderhall of counsel), for appellant. Cozen O'Connor, New York (Michael C. Schmidt of counsel), for respondent. SWEENY, J.P., DeGRASSE, MANZANET–DANIELS, CLARK

  8. Held v. Kaufman

    91 N.Y.2d 425 (N.Y. 1998)   Cited 350 times
    Finding that additional grounds for dismissal raised in a reply affidavit did not violate the single-motion rule where the arguments could not have been raised earlier due to the "indefiniteness" of plaintiff's initial complaint

  9. Oster v. Kirschner

    77 A.D.3d 51 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)   Cited 193 times
    Holding that lawyer's material omissions in a POM establishes both the knowledge and substantial assistance elements of an aiding and abetting claim

  10. Dillenbeck v. Hess

    73 N.Y.2d 278 (N.Y. 1989)   Cited 322 times
    Noting that "to effect a waiver, the party must do more than simply deny the allegations in the complaint—he or she must affirmatively assert the condition 'either by way of counterclaim or to excuse the conduct complained of by the plaintiff'" (quoting Koump v. Smith, 25 N.Y.2d 287, 294, 303 N.Y.S.2d 858, 250 N.E.2d 857 (1969))

  11. Section 29.1 - General provisions

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 8 § 29.1   Cited 120 times

    (a) Unprofessional conduct shall be the conduct prohibited by this section. The provisions of these rules applicable to a particular profession may define additional acts or omissions as unprofessional conduct and may establish exceptions to these general prohibitions. (b) Unprofessional conduct in the practice of any profession licensed, certified or registered pursuant to title VIII of the Education Law, except for cases involving those professions licensed, certified or registered pursuant to