17 Cited authorities

  1. Zuckerman v. City of N.Y

    49 N.Y.2d 557 (N.Y. 1980)   Cited 20,499 times   1 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 . . ."
  2. Sillman v. Twentieth Century-Fox

    3 N.Y.2d 395 (N.Y. 1957)   Cited 4,841 times
    Finding that provision prohibited assignments when the provision stated, in part, that "neither party hereto shall assign this agreement . . . without the prior written consent of the other party," and "that [defendant] shall not be required to recognize any assignments; and that if [defendant] shall receive notice of the existence of any assignment, it shall have the right to withhold payments until the assignment is cancelled or withdrawn"
  3. Negri v. Stop and Shop, Inc.

    65 N.Y.2d 625 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 613 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
  4. Collier v. Zambito

    1 N.Y.3d 444 (N.Y. 2004)   Cited 250 times
    Affirming grant of summary judgment when there “was no evidence that the dog's behavior was ever threatening or menacing” but rather, “the dog's actions—barking and running around—[were] consistent with normal canine behavior. Barking and running around are what dogs do.”
  5. Bard v. Jahnke

    2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 3440 (N.Y. 2006)   Cited 179 times
    In Bard v. Jahnke, 6 N.Y.3d 592, 815 N.Y.S.2d 16, 848 N.E.2d 463 (2006), we expounded upon the relationship between ordinary negligence principles and the strict liability cause of action permitted by Collier and other prior decisions, concluding that strict liability's traditional status as the predominant theory of recovery for injuries caused by a domestic animal logically forecloses recovery under a theory of negligence.
  6. Petrone v. Fernandez

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 4694 (N.Y. 2009)   Cited 116 times
    In Petrone, the plaintiff mail carrier saw that there was no fence around the yard in front of the defendant's house, and the defendant's Rottweiler was lying unrestrained in the yard (see id. at 547–548, 883 N.Y.S.2d 164, 910 N.E.2d 993). Fearful of the dog, the plaintiff started walking away to her car, and when she turned around, she saw the dog running after her (see id.).
  7. Moskowitz v. Garlock

    23 A.D.2d 943 (N.Y. App. Div. 1965)   Cited 256 times

    May 24, 1965 AULISI, J. Appeal from an order entered in the office of the Clerk of the County of Albany on December 3, 1964, which, inter alia, granted summary judgment and struck out defendant's answer. Defendant Garlock on or about December 22, 1960, executed a mortgage to the plaintiff in the sum of $3,165. On June 17, 1964, plaintiff commenced a foreclosure action and issue was joined by an answer which admitted the execution of the mortgage but denied the other allegations in the complaint and

  8. Crowley's Milk Company, Inc. v. Klein

    24 A.D.2d 920 (N.Y. App. Div. 1965)   Cited 161 times

    November 23, 1965 AULISI, J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, Broome County, which denied defendant's motion (1) for summary judgment to dismiss plaintiff's complaint in this action to recover from the defendant personally the balance alleged to be due for merchandise sold and delivered to him while he was operating a business as a receiver; (2) for a stay of proceedings and (3) to punish plaintiff's treasurer and attorney for contempt. The defendant denies liability urging

  9. Wanger v. Zeh

    45 Misc. 2d 93 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1965)   Cited 145 times

    February 8, 1965 Halter, Sullivan Rehfuss for defendants. William Heinecke for plaintiff. T. PAUL KANE, J. Defendants move for summary judgment in an action instituted by plaintiff vendor, for specific performance of a contract of sale of real property. The parties executed the contract in question on April 7, 1964, whereby the plaintiff agreed to sell, and the defendants agreed to purchase, real property known as 163 Lancaster St. in the City of Albany, N.Y. The closing date, originally set for

  10. Esteve v. Abad

    271 App. Div. 725 (N.Y. App. Div. 1947)   Cited 238 times

    March 7, 1947. Appeal from Supreme Court, New York County, KOCH, J. Simon S. Nessim for appellant. Harry Malter for respondent. COHN, J. Plaintiff's husband Edward Esteve was the owner of 25% of the capital stock of Abad-Esteve Corporation. Defendant Louis Abad owned the remaining 75%. The corporation had been operated by defendant and plaintiff's husband for some time. Defendant purchased the 25% stock interest belonging to the husband of plaintiff and as part of the consideration in the transaction