109 Cited authorities

Amabile v. City of Buffalo
93 N.Y.2d 471 (N.Y. 1999) Cited 748 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding constructive notice insufficient as a matter of law
Gordon v. Eastern Ry. Supply
82 N.Y.2d 555 (N.Y. 1993) Cited 895 times
Holding that defendants were liable under Labor Law § 240 for plaintiffs fall and injury occasioned by an allegedly defective sandblaster where such injuries were the foreseeable result of the failure to provide plaintiff with a safe scaffold or ladder while sandblasted a railway car from a ladder
Mirand v. City of New York
84 N.Y.2d 44 (N.Y. 1994) Cited 866 times
Examining a jury verdict to assess whether it was irrational
Williams v. Nassau County Medical Center
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 2454 (N.Y. 2006) Cited 446 times 1 Legal Analyses
Denying leave to serve a late Notice of Claim beyond statutory period even where petitioner argued for infancy toll
Voss v. Neth. Ins. Co.
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 1259 (N.Y. 2014) Cited 247 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Voss, the plaintiff asked the defendant whether an insurance policy with $75,000 in business interruption coverage would be sufficient, and the defendant “allegedly assured her that it would suffice.
Samiento v. World Yacht Inc.
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 1258 (N.Y. 2008) Cited 281 times 12 Legal Analyses
Affirming dismissal of the plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim because such an action does not lie where the plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law
Oboler v. City of New York
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 2441 (N.Y. 2007) Cited 280 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Oboler v City of New York (8 NY3d 888), the plaintiff fell after stepping on a depressed manhole cover in the street.
DaimlerChrysler v. Spitzer
7 N.Y.3d 653 (N.Y. 2006) Cited 227 times
In Spitzer, James Warner bought a new truck manufactured by General Motors Corporation in March 2003. Shortly after acquiring the truck, Warner discovered a transmission problem and attempted to have the problem fixed on five occasions between April and November 2003.
Pierson v. City of New York
56 N.Y.2d 950 (N.Y. 1982) Cited 450 times
Holding that a court may not grant a late notice of claim under the Gen. Mun. Law after the Statute of Limitations has expired
Bender v. Health Hosps
38 N.Y.2d 662 (N.Y. 1976) Cited 296 times
Holding that estoppel can apply "to notice of claim situations" to bar the defense whenever it is raised, explaining that "[this] equitable bar . . . may arise by virtue of positive acts, or omissions where there was a duty to act"

In the Matter of Raymond Newcomb et al., Appellants,v.Middle Country Central School District, Respondent.

109 Cited authorities

Holding constructive notice insufficient as a matter of law

Holding that defendants were liable under Labor Law § 240 for plaintiffs fall and injury occasioned by an allegedly defective sandblaster where such injuries were the foreseeable result of the failure to provide plaintiff with a safe scaffold or ladder while sandblasted a railway car from a ladder

Examining a jury verdict to assess whether it was irrational

Denying leave to serve a late Notice of Claim beyond statutory period even where petitioner argued for infancy toll

In Voss, the plaintiff asked the defendant whether an insurance policy with $75,000 in business interruption coverage would be sufficient, and the defendant “allegedly assured her that it would suffice.

Affirming dismissal of the plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim because such an action does not lie where the plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law

In Oboler v City of New York (8 NY3d 888), the plaintiff fell after stepping on a depressed manhole cover in the street.

In Spitzer, James Warner bought a new truck manufactured by General Motors Corporation in March 2003. Shortly after acquiring the truck, Warner discovered a transmission problem and attempted to have the problem fixed on five occasions between April and November 2003.

Holding that a court may not grant a late notice of claim under the Gen. Mun. Law after the Statute of Limitations has expired

Holding that estoppel can apply "to notice of claim situations" to bar the defense whenever it is raised, explaining that "[this] equitable bar . . . may arise by virtue of positive acts, or omissions where there was a duty to act"