§Why CasetextPricing

Switzerland Green, Appellant,v.Metropolitan Transportation Authority Bus Company, et al., Respondents, Tyese Laws, et al., Defendants.-------------------------------Tyese Laws, Appellant, v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority Bus Company, et al., Respondents.

Brief

21 Cited authorities

  1. Flores v. City of N.Y

    66 A.D.3d 599 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)   Cited 148 times

    No. 1320. October 29, 2009. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul G. Feinman, J.), entered August 19, 2008, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted and the matter remanded for further proceedings. Friedman, Levy, Goldfarb Weiner, P.C., New York (Jeffrey I. Weiner of counsel), for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Ronald

  2. Grullon v. City of N.Y

    297 A.D.2d 261 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)   Cited 101 times
    Holding that "[m]ere conclusory assertions, devoid of evidentiary facts, are insufficient [to defeat a well-supported summary judgment motion], as is reliance upon surmise, conjecture or speculation

  3. Shared Comm. Serv. v. Goldman

    38 A.D.3d 325 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)   Cited 39 times
    Rejecting equitable tolling claim and noting that "there is no basis for tolling the statute of limitations" unless the plaintiff "show that [he or she] was prevented from timely filing an action due to reasonable reliance . . . on deception, fraud or misrepresentation by defendant."

  4. Gonzalez v. City of New York

    295 A.D.2d 122 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)   Cited 20 times
    In Gonzalez, for instance, it was undisputed that in a matter of moments, a police car traveling at a high rate of speed on a wet road skidded out of control and crossed over into the lanes headed in the opposite direction, hitting a city bus; therefore, the Transit Authority was properly granted summary judgment dismissing the claim brought against it by bus passengers (295 AD2d at 122).

  5. 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

  6. Ari v. Cohen

    107 A.D.3d 516 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 5 times

    2013-06-13 Yaron ARI, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Itamar Itzchak COHEN, Respondent–Respondent. Daniel Friedman, Far Rockaway, for appellant. Weisman Law Group P.C., Cedarhurst (Rachel J.B. Weisman of counsel), for respondent. ACOSTA Daniel Friedman, Far Rockaway, for appellant. Weisman Law Group P.C., Cedarhurst (Rachel J.B. Weisman of counsel), for respondent. , J.P., SAXE, RENWICK, RICHTER, CLARK, JJ. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol E. Huff, J.), entered December 21, 2011, which vacated

  7. 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

  8. Matter of Louise

    158 A.D.2d 425 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)   Cited 23 times

    February 27, 1990 Appeal from the Family Court, New York County (Ruth Jane Zuckerman, J.). Respondent contends that petitioner's failure to make diligent efforts to unite her and her daughter precludes a finding of permanent neglect. However, the evidence demonstrated that petitioner arranged visitation and attempted to assist respondent in obtaining housing but respondent kept only 4 of 36 scheduled visits between March 1986 and August 1987 and refused assistance in obtaining housing. Failure to

  9. Rabassa v. Caldas

    306 A.D.2d 137 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)   Cited 9 times

    1426 June 17, 2003. Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth Thompson, J.), entered January 11, 2002, which denied defendants-appellants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Brian J. Isaac, for plaintiff-respondent. Brendan T. Fitzpatrick, for defendants-appellants. Lawrence R. Miles, for defendants-respondents. Brendan T. Fitzpatrick, for defendants-appellants. Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Ellerin, Williams, Lerner, Gonzalez

  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 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