15 Cited authorities

  1. William P. Pahl Equipment Corp. v. Kassis

    182 A.D.2d 22 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)   Cited 914 times
    Finding that plaintiffs were not entitled to reargue a motion to dismiss where the plaintiffs made the same argument in opposition to the motion to dismiss
  2. Carrillo v. PM Realty Group

    16 A.D.3d 611 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 141 times

    2003-10497. March 28, 2005. In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated October 24, 2003, which granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to reargue and, upon reargument, denied their prior motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, which had been granted in an order of the same court dated May 22, 2003. Before: H. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur. Ordered that the

  3. Henry v. Peguero

    72 A.D.3d 600 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)   Cited 110 times
    In Henry, the defendant moved for summary judgment, and the plaintiff opposed the motion by submitting a physician's affidavit.
  4. Caban v. Vega

    226 A.D.2d 109 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)   Cited 34 times

    April 2, 1996 Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan J. Saks, J.). While there were conflicting accounts at trial of this three car accident, it is undisputed that plaintiff and defendant Barron R. Clarke were both driving westbound on White Plains Road near the intersection of Randall Avenue in the Bronx, while defendant Fernando Vega was proceeding in the opposite direction. There were two lanes of traffic moving in each direction. The accident occurred when Vega's vehicle crossed into

  5. Edwards v. New York

    37 A.D.3d 157 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)   Cited 18 times

    No. 9701. February 1, 2007. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Lippmann, J.), entered May 10, 2006, which granted defendant New York City Transit Authority's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied and the complaint reinstated. Michael D. Ribowsky, Richmond Hill, for appellant. Steve S. Efron, New York, for respondents. Before: Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Williams and Buckley, JJ. This is an action for damages arising from

  6. Taub v. Art Students League

    63 A.D.3d 630 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)   Cited 15 times

    No. 947. June 30, 2009. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered June 9, 2008, which granted plaintiffs motion to renew (denominated by the court as one to reargue) a prior order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and, upon renewal, adhered to the prior order, deemed to have denied renewal, and, so considered, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Edward T. Chase, Mount Vernon, for appellant. Zichello McIntyre, LLP, New York (Ann

  7. Pena v. Slater

    100 A.D.3d 488 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 7 times

    2012-11-15 William PENA, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Donald SLATER, et al., Defendants–Appellants, Action Auto Leasing Corporation, et al., Defendants. Rosenbaum & Taylor, P.C., White Plains (Dara L. Rosenbaum of counsel), for appellants. Codelia & Socorro, P.C., Bronx (Peter R. Shipman of counsel), for respondent. FRIEDMAN Rosenbaum & Taylor, P.C., White Plains (Dara L. Rosenbaum of counsel), for appellants. Codelia & Socorro, P.C., Bronx (Peter R. Shipman of counsel), for respondent. FRIEDMAN, J.P

  8. Cruz v. MTLR Corp.

    111 A.D.3d 568 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 3 times

    2013-11-26 Antonio Carlos CRUZ, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. MTLR CORP., et al., Defendants–Respondents, Jaime Piscil, et al., Defendants. Kahn Gordon Timko & Rodriques, P.C., New York (Nicholas I. Timko of counsel), for appellant. Weiner, Millo, Morgan & Bonanno, LLC, New York (John P. Bonanno of counsel), for respondents. Kahn Gordon Timko & Rodriques, P.C., New York (Nicholas I. Timko of counsel), for appellant. Weiner, Millo, Morgan & Bonanno, LLC, New York (John P. Bonanno of counsel), for respondents

  9. Bailey v. Montefiore Medical Center

    12 A.D.3d 545 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)   Cited 10 times

    2004-00060. November 22, 2004. In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dabiri, J.), dated November 19, 2003, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action is barred by the Workers' Compensation Law. Before: Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein and Mastro, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint

  10. Liu v. Cheng

    82 A.D.3d 405 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 2 times

    No. 4380. March 1, 2011. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (George J. Silver, J.), entered April 23, 2010, which, in an action for personal injuries, wrongful death and negligent infliction of emotional distress arising out of an automobile accident, denied defendant-appellant O'Reilly's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Martin, Fallon Mulle, Huntington (Stephen P. Burke of counsel), for appellant. Johnson Liebman, LLP, New

  11. Section 1126 - No-passing zones

    N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 1126   Cited 114 times

    (a) When official markings are in place indicating those portions of any highway where overtaking and passing or driving to the left of such markings would be especially hazardous, no driver of a vehicle proceeding along such highway shall at any time drive on the left side of such markings. (b) The foregoing limitations shall not apply to the driver of a vehicle turning left while entering or leaving such highway. (c) Where a two-way left turn lane or a paved and clearly traversible dividing section

  12. Section 600.10 - Format and content of records, appendices and briefs

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 600.10   Cited 11 times

    (a) Form and size. (1) Generally; paper and page size. Records, appendices and briefs shall be reproduced by any method that produces a permanent, legible, black on white copy and shall be on a good grade of white, opaque, unglazed recycled paper that satisfies the requirements of subdivision (e) of this section. Paper shall measure vertically 11 inches on the bound edge and horizontally 81/2 inches. The clerk may refuse to accept for filing a paper which is not legible or otherwise does not comply