Gaines v. City of New York

7 Citing briefs

  1. Norex Petroleum Limited, Appellant,v.Leonard Blavatnik, et al., Respondents.

    Brief

    Filed May 6, 2014

    at 529 (citation omitted) 18 91 N.Y.2d 180 (1997). 19 215 N.Y. 533 (1915). 20 Id.

  2. Norex Petroleum Limited, Appellant,v.Leonard Blavatnik, et al., Respondents.

    Brief

    Filed May 6, 2014

    Indeed, the “important consideration is that by invoking judicial aid, a litigant gives timely notice to his adversary of a present purpose to maintain his rights before the courts.” Gaines, 215 N.Y. at 596 (emphasis added); see also Siegel, N.Y. Prac. § 52 (5th ed.) (“key inquiry” is whether the first action provided “the defendant [with] notice within the applicable period of limitation”).

  3. The People, Respondent,v.John Andujar, Appellant.

    Brief

    Filed September 5, 2017

    Instead, the 36 statute must be interpreted based on the facts at hand. See Gaines v. City of New York, 215 N.Y. 533, 541 (1915) (“Grotesque or fanciful situ- ations, such as those supposed, will have to be dealt with when they arise. That they are conceivable, though improbable, ought not to gov- ern our construction.”)

  4. ACE Securities Corp.,, Appellant,v.DB Structured Products, Inc., Respondent.

    Brief

    Filed April 30, 2015

    To be sure, statutes of limitation “embody an important policy of giving repose to human affairs” by “afford[ing] protection to defendants against defending stale claims after a reasonable period of time ha[s] elapsed,” Flanagan v. Mount Eden Gen. Hosp., 24 N.Y.2d 427, 429 (1969), and protection to “judicial system from the burden of adjudicating stale and groundless claims.” Duffy, 66 N.Y.2d at 476-77; see also Gaines v. City of N.Y., 215 N.Y. 533, 539 (1915) (Cardozo, J.) (“The important consideration is that by invoking judicial aid, a litigant gives timely notice to his adversary of a present purpose to maintain his rights before the courts.”).

  5. Norex Petroleum Limited, Appellant,v.Leonard Blavatnik, et al., Respondents.

    Brief

    Filed May 6, 2014

    CPLR 205(a) is a “vitally important” remedial statute that should not “be frittered away by any narrow construction” or “subordinate[d].” 12 Goldstein, 13 N.Y.3d at 521; Gaines v. City of New York, 215 N.Y. 533, 539 (1915) (Cardozo, J.). II.

  6. ACE Securities Corp.,, Appellant,v.DB Structured Products, Inc., Respondent.

    Brief

    Filed April 30, 2015

    ., No. 89-cv-2366, 1999 WL 34866812 (D. Mass. Dec. 23, 1999) .......................46 Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency v. DB Structured Prods., Inc., No. 652978/2012, 2014 WL 1384489 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. Mar. 17, 2014) ........................ 44, 48, 74 Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency v. WMC Mortg. LLC No. 13-cv-584(AKH), 2013 WL 7144159 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2013) ....................................................48 Feder v. Union Carbide Corp., 141 A.D.2d 799 (2d Dep’t 1988) ........................................................................70 vi Fisher v. N.Y., 67 N.Y. 73 (1876) ...............................................................................................59 Flanagan v. Mt. Eden Gen. Hosp., 24 N.Y.2d 427 (1969) .................................................................................. 21, 68 Frankart Furniture Staten Island v. Forest Mall Assocs., 159 A.D.2d 322 (1st Dep’t 1990) .......................................................................81 Gaines v. City of N.Y., 215 N.Y. 533 (1915) ................................................................................... 85, 86 Ganley v. Troy City Nat’l Bank, 98 N.Y. 487 (1885) ............................................................................................58 George v. Mt. Sinai Hosp., 47 N.Y.2d 170 (1979) ......................................................... 80, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88 Goldberg v. Camp Mikan-Recro, 42 N.Y.2d 1029 (1977) ................................................................................ 69, 80 Green Bus Lines, Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 169 A.D.2d 758 (2d Dep’t 1991) ........................................................................27 Greenfield v. Philles Records, 98 N.Y.2d 562 (2002) .........................................................................................62 Gregoire v. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 298 N.Y. 119 (1948) ...........................................................................................21 GRT, Inc. v. Marathon GTF Tech., Ltd.,

  7. Thea et al v. Kleinhandler

    RESPONSE to Motion re: 46 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint . . Document

    Filed July 25, 2014

    Its broad and liberal purpose is not to be frittered away by any narrow construction. The important consideration is that by invoking judicial aid, a litigant gives timely notice to his adversary of a present purpose to maintain his rights before the courts" (Gaines v City of New York, 215 NY 533, 539, 109 N.E. 594 [1915]) [emphasis added]; see also Goldstein v New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 13 NY3d 511, 521, 921 N.E.2d 164, 893 N.Y.S.2d 472 [2009] [Section 205 (a) "shares with its venerable predecessor provisions [*24] the broad and liberal purpose of remedying what might otherwise be the harsh consequence of applying a limitations period where the defending party has had timely notice of the action" (internal quotation marks omitted)]). Forum Shopping Finally, defendants accuse Norex of forum shopping in contravention of CPLR 202, having made a "strategic decision" to litigate first in Russia and then in federal court, where it did not assert any New York claims, before finally settling on state court when these earlier lawsuits proved unsuccessful.