You are here: / / Criteria for Preemption by Martin Act
,

Criteria for Preemption by Martin Act

The Second Department noted the criteria for preemption of state law by the Martin Act:

…[T]he Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s prior motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that it is preempted by the Martin Act (see General Business Law art 23-A). Since the plaintiff’s common-law causes of action to recover damages for breach of contract and derivative declaratory judgment causes of action are not “predicated solely on a violation of the Martin Act or its implementing regulations,” they are not preempted by the Martin Act … .  Meadowbrook Farms Homeowners Assn, Inc v JZG Resources Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 02381, 2011-089/10, Index No 839/10, 2nd Dept 4-10-13

 

You might also like
SCHOOL DISTRICT NOT LIABLE FOR A SEXUAL ASSAULT BY A STUDENT BEFORE CLASSES STARTED, THE ATTACK WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENT, HER EDUCATION PLAN DID NOT PROVIDE FOR AN AIDE TO ESCORT HER FROM THE BUS TO THE SCHOOL OR BETWEEN CLASSES (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE MUNICIPALITY PROVED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE ICY SIDEWALK WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, IT DID NOT PROVE THAT PILING SNOW ALONG THE EDGE OF THE SIDEWALK DID NOT CREATE THE ICY CONDITION; THE MUNICIPALITY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
Defense Counsel Should Have Been Present During Exchange Between Judge and Juror Which Resulted in Disqualification of Juror/Judge Should Have Disclosed Reason for Disqualification
MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER TO ASSERT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE, MADE SIX YEARS AFTER INITIAL ANSWER WAS SERVED, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED.
THERE WERE TWO STEPS LEADING TO A LANDING AT DEFENDANT’S FRONT DOOR; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE ABSENCE OF A HANDRAIL WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HER FALL; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Corroboration Requirements for Child’s Out-of-Court Statements Described
THE STOP OF DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION; THE REPORT THAT A SUSPICIOUS CAR WAS FOLLOWING SOMEONE DID NOT DESCRIBE THE CAR AND DEFENDANT WAS NOT FOLLOWING ANYONE WHEN STOPPED; THE PROOF AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS TRESPASSING BY DRIVING ON THE PRIVATE ROAD, WHICH WAS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE STOP RELIED UPON BY SUPREME COURT (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED AN INQUIRY TO ENSURE DEFENDANT INTELLIGENTLY WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL AFTER HIS ATTORNEY WAS PERMITTED TO WITHDRAW; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Award of Sole Custody to Mother Without a Hearing Reversed—Reliance on... Guilty Plea Forfeits All Ineffective Assistance Claims Except those Relating...