§Why CasetextPricing

Janice Mazella,, Respondent,v.William Beals, M.D., Appellant, et al., Defendant.

Brief

29 Cited authorities

  1. Lolik v. Big V Supermarkets, Inc.

    86 N.Y.2d 744 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 1,064 times

    Decided July 5, 1995 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, Robert F. Doran, J. Grasso, Rodriguez, Putorti, Grasso Zyra, Schenectady (Lawrence J. Zyra of counsel), for appellants. Rowley, Forrest, O'Donnell, Beaumont Pelersi, P.C., Albany (John H. Beaumont and Richard W. Bader of counsel), for respondent. MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the matter remitted to that Court for further proceedings in

  2. Cohen v. Hallmark Cards

    45 N.Y.2d 493 (N.Y. 1978)   Cited 1,944 times   1 Legal Analyses
    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"

  3. Szczerbiak v. Pilat

    90 N.Y.2d 553 (N.Y. 1997)   Cited 761 times
    Finding that the police officer's striking a pedestrian, while glancing down from the road momentarily to turn on his emergency lights, was "a momentary judgment lapse," which did not alone rise to the level of recklessness

  4. People v. Schwartzman

    24 N.Y.2d 241 (N.Y. 1969)   Cited 452 times
    Holding that cross-examiner cannot contradict witness' answers concerning collateral matters by producing extrinsic evidence for sole purpose of impeaching credibility, but where evidence sought to be introduced is relevant to some issue in case other than credibility, or if evidence is independently admissible to impeach witness, it may be admitted

  5. Noseworthy v. City of New York

    298 N.Y. 76 (N.Y. 1948)   Cited 470 times
    In Noseworthy, the decedent somehow got down from the platform of defendant's subway station to the tracks and was struck by a train.

  6. People v. Molineux

    168 N.Y. 264 (N.Y. 1901)   Cited 2,068 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a defendant is entitled to a pre-trial hearing to determine the admissibility of the defendant's uncharged crimes as part of the People's direct case

  7. Argentina v. Emery World Wide Delivery Corp.

    93 N.Y.2d 554 (N.Y. 1999)   Cited 91 times
    Reviewing joint legislative history of N.Y. Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 253 and 388

  8. Rohring v. Niagara Falls

    84 N.Y.2d 60 (N.Y. 1994)   Cited 98 times
    Holding that postjudgment interest applies to the "total sum awarded," even the portions of the award that compensate for future damages

  9. Matter of Brandon

    55 N.Y.2d 206 (N.Y. 1982)   Cited 104 times
    Noting the failure of some courts to distinguish between the weak similarity requirement of the intent exception from the strong similarity requirement of the common plan exception

  10. Lynch v. Bay Ridge Obstetrical & Gynecological Associates

    72 N.Y.2d 632 (N.Y. 1988)   Cited 76 times
    In Lynch v. Bay Ridge Obstetrical Gynecological Assocs. (72 N.Y.2d 632), the plaintiff sought medical treatment for herself, not in connection with pregnancy but because she had missed three menstrual periods.

  11. Section 230 - State board for professional medical conduct; proceedings

    N.Y. Pub. Health Law § 230   Cited 327 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing procedures for revocations of medical licenses

  12. Section 10 - Legal presumptions; evidence

    N.Y. Pub. Health Law § 10   Cited 66 times

    1. The actions, proceedings, authority, and orders of the department in enforcing the provisions of the public health law and the sanitary code applying them to specific cases shall at all times be regarded as in their nature judicial, and shall be treated as prima facie just and legal. 2. The written reports of state and local health officers, inspectors, investigators, nurses and other representatives of state and local health officers on questions of fact pertaining to, concerning or arising under