§Why CasetextPricing

William Jacobsen, Appellant,v.New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, Respondent.

Brief

17 Cited authorities

  1. Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp

    68 N.Y.2d 320 (N.Y. 1986)   Cited 21,212 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Finding summary judgment appropriate by relying on a treating doctor's unrebutted deposition testimony

  2. Winegrad v. N.Y. Univ. Medical Center

    64 N.Y.2d 851 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 18,113 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Reversing the motion court's order granting the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment where they failed to demonstrate, with admissible proof, that the claims against them should be dismissed

  3. Giuffrida v. Citibank Corp.

    100 N.Y.2d 72 (N.Y. 2003)   Cited 1,409 times
    Discussing legislative reforms

  4. Rotuba Extruders v. Ceppos

    46 N.Y.2d 223 (N.Y. 1978)   Cited 3,674 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that summary judgment should be denied where there is any doubt as to the existence of triable issues of fact

  5. Parker v. Columbia Pictures Industries

    204 F.3d 326 (2d Cir. 2000)   Cited 1,306 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "summary judgment may be appropriate under Cleveland where the SSDI and ADA claims ‘involve directly conflicting statements about purely factual matters’ "

  6. Sillman v. Twentieth Century-Fox

    3 N.Y.2d 395 (N.Y. 1957)   Cited 5,995 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that provision prohibited assignments when the provision stated, in part, that "neither party hereto shall assign this agreement . . . without the prior written consent of the other party," and "that [defendant] shall not be required to recognize any assignments; and that if [defendant] shall receive notice of the existence of any assignment, it shall have the right to withhold payments until the assignment is cancelled or withdrawn"

  7. McBride v. BIC Consumer Products Manufacturing Co.

    583 F.3d 92 (2d Cir. 2009)   Cited 695 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding "that an employer's failure to engage in a sufficient interactive process does not form the basis of a claim under the ADA and evidence thereof does not allow a plaintiff to avoid summary judgment unless she also establishes that, at least with the aid of some identified accommodation, she was qualified for the position at issue"

  8. Graves v. Finch Pruyn Co., Inc.

    457 F.3d 181 (2d Cir. 2006)   Cited 430 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the ADA did not require employer to create a temporary position or make it permanent

  9. Rodal v. Anesthesia Grp. of Onondaga, P.C

    369 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2004)   Cited 377 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that although doctors in defendant group were expected to perform night duty, a conclusion that night duty was essential was not justified on motion for summary judgment, in light of evidence presented

  10. Schumacher v. Shear Co.

    59 N.Y.2d 239 (N.Y. 1983)   Cited 479 times
    Holding that ordinarily, a corporation bears no responsibility for the prior tort debts of another corporation whose assets it has purchased

  11. Section 466.11 - Provision of reasonable accommodation by employers, pursuant to human rights law, sections 292.21, 292.21-e, 295.5, 296.3 and 296.3-a

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 9 § 466.11   Cited 49 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) Reasonable accommodation. (1) Reasonable accommodation is defined in the Human Rights Law at section 292.21 -e, as follows: The term "reasonable accommodation" means actions taken which permit an employee, prospective employee or member with a disability to perform in a reasonable manner the activities involved in the job or occupation sought or held and include, but are not limited to, provision of an accessible worksite, acquisition or modification of equipment, support services for persons