Cohen v. Hallmark Cards

Holding that the standard of review in assessing a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is whether there is "simply no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational [people] to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial"

Burgos v. Aqueduct Realty Corp.

In Burgos, in contrast, the court found that summary judgment was not appropriate despite the intruder requirement because "the plaintiff in her affidavit stated that she did not recognize her assailants, although she lived in a relatively small building and was familiar with all of the building's tenants and their families."

Mountain View Coach v. Storms

Holding that plaintiff who did not hire a substitute bus but rather used one of its reserves could still recover for loss of use

Rivera v. N Y City Tr. Auth

Discussing the emergency doctrine and noting that "[t]his doctrine recognizes that when an actor is faced with a sudden and unexpected circumstance which leaves little or no time for thought, deliberation or consideration, or causes the actor to be reasonably so disturbed that the actor must make a speedy decision without weighing alternative courses of conduct, the actor may not be negligent if the actions taken are reasonable and prudent in the emergency context"

People v. Geraci

Adopting procedure and burden of proof established by Holtzman

Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co.

Holding that foreseeability is a factor in determining duty and stating that "the orbit of the danger as disclosed to the eye of reasonable vigilance would be the orbit of the duty"

Rogers v. Dorchester Assoc

Holding that the "rule of apportionment" did not apply to passive parties because they "are only vicariously liable"

Campbell v. City of Elmira

In Campbell v. City of Elmira, 84 N.Y.2d 505, 620 N.Y.S.2d 302, 644 N.E.2d 993 (1994), the court found that there were sharply disputed facts and inferences that justified upholding a jury's finding of recklessness, thus distinguishing Saarinen. Campbell, 620 N YS.2d at 306-07, 644 N.E.2d at 997-98.

Adamy v. Ziriakus

In Adamy, plaintiff's circumstantial evidence consisted of an expert who established that defendant consumed 12 drinks prior to the accident, and the testimony of several police officers who testified that defendant had alcohol on his breath, glassy, red eyes, slurred speech, that he was unresponsive to police inquiries and that he was swaying and staggering when walking.

Soto v. New York City Transit Authority

Describing the jury verdict allocating fault on which the judgment being affirmed was based

Section 500.11 - Alternative procedure for selected appeals