§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

48 Cited authorities

  1. Cohen v. Hallmark Cards

    45 N.Y.2d 493 (N.Y. 1978)   Cited 1,945 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"

  2. Misicki v. Caradonna

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 3764 (N.Y. 2009)   Cited 597 times
    Holding that 12 N.Y.C.R.R. § 23-9.2 imposes a nondelegable duty to make "necessary repairs or replacement" upon discovery of any unsafe condition

  3. Edenwald Contracting Co., Inc. v. City of New York

    60 N.Y.2d 957 (N.Y. 1983)   Cited 995 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Edenwald Contr. Co. v City of New York (60 N.Y.2d 957), the Court of Appeals, in rejecting a 6 1/2-year delay from the commencement of the action therein as laches, stated that lateness alone is not a barrier to the amendment of pleadings since there must be significant prejudice as well (see also, Sass v Mack Trucks, 158 A.D.2d 332; Granieri v Ryder Truck Rental, 112 A.D.2d 189 [which authorized the addition of a defense some 7 1/2 years after the joinder of issue]).

  4. First Financial Ins. Co. v. Jetco Contr.

    1 N.Y.3d 64 (N.Y. 2003)   Cited 316 times
    Holding an unexplained delay of forty-eight days following receipt of a claim notice to be "unreasonable as a matter of law"

  5. Lyons v. McCauley

    252 A.D.2d 516 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)   Cited 369 times

    July 13, 1998 Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.). Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs. To be entitled to judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401, the defendant has the burden of showing that, upon viewing the evidence in the light most favorable' to the plaintiff, the plaintiff has not made out a prima facie case. The court may grant the motion only if there is no rational process by which the jury could find for the plaintiff against the moving defendant

  6. Murray v. City of New York

    43 N.Y.2d 400 (N.Y. 1977)   Cited 476 times
    Holding that workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy as a matter of substantive law, and hence, whenever it appears from the plaintiff's pleadings, bill of particulars, or the facts that the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant, the obligation of alleging and proving noncoverage or applicability of workers' compensation benefits falls on the plaintiff; the court continued, stating that waiver may be accomplished by ignoring the issue to the point of final disposition

  7. Bleiler v. Bodnar

    65 N.Y.2d 65 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 327 times
    Holding that a failure to take proper medical histories constitutes medical malpractice because taking a medical history is a crucial part of diagnosis and treatment, while the failure to provide competent medical personnel or promulgate appropriate emergency room rules constitutes ordinary negligence

  8. Hartford Insurance Company v. County of Nassau

    46 N.Y.2d 1028 (N.Y. 1979)   Cited 380 times
    Holding that an unexplained two month delay in disclaiming coverage was unreasonable as a matter of law

  9. Stephenson v. Hotel Union

    2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 1197 (N.Y. 2006)   Cited 128 times
    Holding that the issue in an action for employment discrimination '"is not whether defendants acted with good cause, but whether their business decisions would not have been made but for a discriminatory motive'"

  10. Geraci v. Probst

    2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 7248 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 100 times
    In Geraci, the defendant sent a letter to the Board of Fire Commissioners, and, more than three years later, a newspaper published the letter.

  11. Section 1000.2 - Appeal defined; time limitations; perfection of appeals; responding and reply briefs

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 1000.2   Cited 27 times

    (a) Appeal defined. For the purposes of these rules the word appeal shall mean appeal or cross appeal, unless otherwise indicated by text or context. (b) Perfecting appeals generally. Unless otherwise provided by statute, rule or order of this court or justice of this court, all appeals shall be perfected pursuant to section 1000.3 of this Part within 60 days of service on the opposing party of the notice of appeal. An appeal not perfected within the 60- day period is subject to dismissal on motion