31 Cited authorities

Alvord Swift v. Muller
46 N.Y.2d 276 (N.Y. 1978) Cited 491 times
Holding that because "the interference must be intentional, not merely negligent or incidental," a plaintiff does not state a claim by alleging that a defendant's breach of contract incidentally interfered with a third party's separate contract
Cabrera v. Jakabovitz
24 F.3d 372 (2d Cir. 1994) Cited 309 times
Holding that, although a jury instruction that included the phrase " prima facie case" and referred to "defendant's `burden' of produc[tion]" "created a distinct risk of confusing the jury," in certain instances it would be appropriate to instruct the jury on the elements of a prima facie case
Bovsun v. Sanperi
61 N.Y.2d 219 (N.Y. 1984) Cited 312 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "where a defendant negligently exposes a plaintiff to an unreasonable risk of bodily injury or death, the plaintiff may recover, as a proper element of his or her damages, damages for injuries suffered in consequence of the observation of the serious injury or death of a member of his or her immediate family"
Halloran v. Virginia Chems
41 N.Y.2d 386 (N.Y. 1977) Cited 194 times
Holding that where a "plaintiff has proven that the product has not performed as intended and excluded all causes of the accident not attributable to defendant, the fact finder may, even if the particular defect has not been proven, infer that the accident could only have occurred due to some defect in the product or its packaging"
Ravo v. Rogatnick
70 N.Y.2d 305 (N.Y. 1987) Cited 113 times
Finding joint and several liability appropriate where the evidence established that plaintiff's brain damage was a single indivisible injury and the defendants failed to submit any evidence upon which a finder of fact could base an apportionment of damages
Lusenskas v. Axelrod
183 A.D.2d 244 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992) Cited 56 times
In Lusenskas v Axelrod (183 AD2d 244, appeal dismissed 81 NY2d 300), a case in which the sole issue was constructive notice to the landlord of the violation not causation, there was a sufficient causal connection established where the lack of a self-closing hinge on an apartment's front door allowed the uncontrolled spread of the fire to the corridor and plaintiff fire-fighter was hit with a blast of superheated air when another door from the stairway to the corridor was opened.
Green v. Downs
27 N.Y.2d 205 (N.Y. 1970) Cited 91 times
Argued September 23, 1970 Decided November 12, 1970 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, HARRY GITTLESON, J. Benjamin H. Siff for appellants. GIBSON, J. The plaintiff suing on the primary cause of action in this negligence case was injured when the defendants' automobile backed into her as she stood upon the street. By a divided vote, the Appellate Division affirmed the judgment entered upon the verdict of no cause of action. The order of the Appellate
Trombetta v. Conkling
82 N.Y.2d 549 (N.Y. 1993) Cited 42 times 1 Legal Analyses
Denying recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress to the aunt of the injured party, who was clearly within the zone of danger at the time of the accident, because she was not an immediate family member
Ramos v. La Montana Moving & Storage, Inc.
247 A.D.2d 333 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998) Cited 32 times
In Ramos v. La Montana Moving & Stor. (247 AD2d 333 [1998]), plaintiff endured conscious pain and suffering during the 15 to 30 minutes he lived after sustaining severe, crushing injuries when he was run over by a tractor trailer.
Wallace v. Parks Corp.
212 A.D.2d 132 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995) Cited 33 times
Holding that three plaintiffs who were exposed to a fire and sustained physical injuries while trying to rescue their wife/mother were in the zone of danger, but that a fourth plaintiff who ran out of the house when the fire began was not in the zone of danger and therefore could not recover

Elissa Motelson,, et al., Appellants,v.Ford Motor Company, et al., Respondents. (And Another Action.)

31 Cited authorities

Holding that because "the interference must be intentional, not merely negligent or incidental," a plaintiff does not state a claim by alleging that a defendant's breach of contract incidentally interfered with a third party's separate contract

Holding that, although a jury instruction that included the phrase " prima facie case" and referred to "defendant's `burden' of produc[tion]" "created a distinct risk of confusing the jury," in certain instances it would be appropriate to instruct the jury on the elements of a prima facie case

Finding joint and several liability appropriate where the evidence established that plaintiff's brain damage was a single indivisible injury and the defendants failed to submit any evidence upon which a finder of fact could base an apportionment of damages

Denying recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress to the aunt of the injured party, who was clearly within the zone of danger at the time of the accident, because she was not an immediate family member

In Ramos v. La Montana Moving & Stor. (247 AD2d 333 [1998]), plaintiff endured conscious pain and suffering during the 15 to 30 minutes he lived after sustaining severe, crushing injuries when he was run over by a tractor trailer.

Holding that three plaintiffs who were exposed to a fire and sustained physical injuries while trying to rescue their wife/mother were in the zone of danger, but that a fourth plaintiff who ran out of the house when the fire began was not in the zone of danger and therefore could not recover