21 Cited authorities

Zuckerman v. City of N.Y.
49 N.Y.2d 557 (N.Y. 1980) Cited 24,753 times 9 Legal Analyses
Granting summary judgment as the city's arguments were considered speculation and this was "patently inadequate to establish the existence of a factual issue requiring a trial . . ."
Winegrad v. N.Y. Univ. Medical Center
64 N.Y.2d 851 (N.Y. 1985) Cited 18,036 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
State Street Bank v. Inversiones Errazuriz
374 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2004) Cited 560 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a bank did not act arbitrarily or irrationally when conditioning its consent to a debtor's asset sale "on the receipt of additional collateral and economic benefits to which the bank was not entitled under the [contract]"
Capelin Assoc. v. Globe Mfg. Corp.
34 N.Y.2d 338 (N.Y. 1974) Cited 1,468 times
Holding that "[o]n a motion for summary judgment the court is not to determine credibility, but whether there exists a factual issue, or if arguably there is a genuine issue of fact"
Negri v. Stop and Shop, Inc.
65 N.Y.2d 625 (N.Y. 1985) Cited 678 times
Holding that circumstantial evidence that broken jars of baby food were on the floor for fifteen to twenty minutes tended to show that supermarket had constructive notice of the dangerous condition
Medinol Ltd. v. Boston Scientific Corp.
346 F. Supp. 2d 575 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) Cited 71 times
Holding that comprehensive nature of representations and covenants of supply agreement was inconsistent with tort of misappropriation of trade secrets
Putnam Ladder Co. v. Hanover
74 N.Y.2d 340 (N.Y. 1989) Cited 80 times
Rejecting the use of comparative negligence under U.C.C. § 4-406
Louniakov v. M.R.O.D. Corp.
282 A.D.2d 657 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001) Cited 50 times
April 23, 2001. In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 27, 2000, which granted the motion of the defendant M.R.O.D. Realty Corp. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Before: Ritter, J.P., Santucci, Goldstein and Crane, JJ., concur. Garry, J. Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated. The plaintiff Yevgeny Louniakov
Robinson Motor Xpress, Inc. v. HSBC Bank, USA
37 A.D.3d 117 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006) Cited 40 times
In Robinson, an account agreement provided that the statements would be mailed to the address provided on the signature card unless that address was subsequently changed by a document executed by an authorized signatory.
Monreal v. Fleet Bank
95 N.Y.2d 204 (N.Y. 2000) Cited 48 times
Applying UCC

Clemente Bros. Contracting Corp., et al., Appellants,v.Aprile Hafner-Milazzo,, Defendant, Capital One, N.A., Respondent.

21 Cited authorities

Granting summary judgment as the city's arguments were considered speculation and this was "patently inadequate to establish the existence of a factual issue requiring a trial . . ."

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

Holding that a bank did not act arbitrarily or irrationally when conditioning its consent to a debtor's asset sale "on the receipt of additional collateral and economic benefits to which the bank was not entitled under the [contract]"

Holding that "[o]n a motion for summary judgment the court is not to determine credibility, but whether there exists a factual issue, or if arguably there is a genuine issue of fact"

Holding that circumstantial evidence that broken jars of baby food were on the floor for fifteen to twenty minutes tended to show that supermarket had constructive notice of the dangerous condition

Holding that comprehensive nature of representations and covenants of supply agreement was inconsistent with tort of misappropriation of trade secrets

Rejecting the use of comparative negligence under U.C.C. § 4-406

In Robinson, an account agreement provided that the statements would be mailed to the address provided on the signature card unless that address was subsequently changed by a document executed by an authorized signatory.

Applying UCC