§Why CasetextPricing

Lisa M. Oakes, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Daniel C. Oakes, Deceased, Respondent,v.Rajnikant Patel, M.D., et al., Appellants.

Brief

9 Cited authorities

  1. Majauskas v. Majauskas

    61 N.Y.2d 481 (N.Y. 1984)   Cited 585 times
    Holding that vested rights in a noncontributory pension plan are marital property to the extent they were acquired between the date of marriage and commencement of a matrimonial action

  2. Kover v. Kover

    29 N.Y.2d 408 (N.Y. 1972)   Cited 117 times
    In Kover (29 N.Y.2d 408, supra), and in the two companion cases decided with it, in interpreting section 236 as it applies to a wife's ability to earn an income, we left the parties with incomes as nearly equal as circumstances permitted.

  3. Jacques v. Sears, Roebuck Co.

    30 N.Y.2d 466 (N.Y. 1972)   Cited 101 times

    Argued May 4, 1972 Decided June 8, 1972 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, ORMAND N. GALE, J. Beverly A. Michaels for appellant. William L. Allen, Jr. for respondents. BREITEL, J. Section 218 of the General Business Law gives a retail merchant a defense in an action for false arrest and imprisonment for its detention of a suspect shoplifter if reasonable. The issue is whether the merchant's defense extends to the arrest outside its store and

  4. Baudanza v. Comcast of Massachusetts I

    454 Mass. 622 (Mass. 2009)   Cited 25 times

    April 9, 2009. September 4, 2009. Present: MARSHALL, C.J., IRELAND, SPINA, COWIN, CORDY, BOTSFORD, GANTS, JJ. Practice, Civil, Additur, Amendment, Appeal, New trial, Instructions to jury. Damages, Conscious pain and suffering, Additur. Judgment, Amendment. Negligence, Motor vehicle. Evidence, Medical expenses, Expert opinion. Practice, Civil, Judicial discretion. This court concluded that, as to motions for a new trial granted after this date, a defendant accepting an additur order issued by a judge

  5. Monahan v. Weichert

    82 A.D.2d 102 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)   Cited 70 times

    July 9, 1981 Appeal from the Supreme Court, Onondaga County, DAVID F. LEE, JR., J. McCrone Davis (Jeffrey M. McCrone of counsel), for appellants. Martin, Ganotis Brown, P.C. (John Ganotis of counsel), for Harold R. Weichert, respondent. Hancock, Estabrook, Ryan, Shove Hust (Frank Bersani, Jr., of counsel), for St. Joseph's Hospital, respondent. SCHNEPP, J. In this medical malpractice case we consider primarily the problem of distinguishing the effect of the defendant Dr. Harold R. Weichert's alleged

  6. Dentes v. Mauser

    91 A.D.3d 1143 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 11 times

    2012-01-19 Elsie DENTES, as Administrator of the Estate of George Dentes, Deceased, Respondent, v. Jonathan MAUSER et al., Appellants. Alessandra DeBlasio, New York City, for appellants. Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, New York City (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), for respondent. SPAIN Alessandra DeBlasio, New York City, for appellants. Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, New York City (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), for respondent. Before: PETERS, J.P., SPAIN, McCARTHY, GARRY and EGAN JR., JJ. SPAIN

  7. Poole v. Veterans Auto Sales Leasing

    668 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 1996)   Cited 21 times
    In Poole v. Veterans Auto Sales and Leasing Co., Inc., 668 So.2d 189, 191 (Fla. 1996), the Florida Supreme Court concluded that section 768.74, Florida Statutes (1995), which authorizes remitturs and additurs, does not alter the "long-standing principles applicable to the granting of new trials on damages."

  8. Knight v. Long Island College Hospital

    106 A.D.2d 371 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)   Cited 17 times
    Vacating $1 million award for future physical and psychological injury to injured infant

  9. Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Conway

    11 N.Y.2d 367 (N.Y. 1962)   Cited 42 times
    In Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co. v Conway (11 N.Y.2d 367) when an action was brought by an insurer for rescission of a life insurance policy the Court of Appeals stated: "Since the plaintiff brought the action in equity for rescission, an action unquestionably triable by a court without a jury, the defendants do not become entitled as a matter of law, constitutionally or otherwise, to a trial by jury" (p 370).