§Why CasetextPricing

The People of the State of New York by Andrew M. Cuomo,, Respondent,v.Maurice R. Greenberg, et al., Appellants.

Brief

45 Cited authorities

  1. Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp

    68 N.Y.2d 320 (N.Y. 1986)   Cited 21,212 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Finding summary judgment appropriate by relying on a treating doctor's unrebutted deposition testimony

  2. Zuckerman v. City of N.Y.

    49 N.Y.2d 557 (N.Y. 1980)   Cited 24,815 times   9 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 . . ."

  3. Brill v. City of New York

    2 N.Y.3d 648 (N.Y. 2004)   Cited 1,622 times
    Holding that the movant must provide courts with a satisfactory explanation for missing CPLR 3212 deadlines

  4. W.W.W. Assocs v. Giancontieri

    77 N.Y.2d 157 (N.Y. 1990)   Cited 2,206 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that extrinsic evidence was immaterial, in part because the contract plainly manifested intent that all prior understandings were merged into the contract, which expressed the parties' full agreement

  5. Friends of Animals, Inc. v. Associated Fur Mfrs., Inc.

    46 N.Y.2d 1065 (N.Y. 1979)   Cited 3,394 times
    Finding summary judgment shall be granted only when there are no issues of material fact and the evidence requires the court to direct judgment in favor of the. movant as a matter of law.

  6. Phillips v. Kantor Co.

    31 N.Y.2d 307 (N.Y. 1972)   Cited 613 times
    Indicating that Dead Man's Statute would render interested party's deposition testimony inadmissible at trial

  7. Sutton v. East River Savings Bank

    55 N.Y.2d 550 (N.Y. 1982)   Cited 337 times
    Explaining that when interpreting a contract, "the aim is a practical interpretation of the expression of the parties to the end that there be a realization of their reasonable expectations"

  8. James O'Halloran v. City of N.Y

    78 A.D.3d 536 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)   Cited 148 times

    No. 3645. November 18, 2010. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered March 8, 2010, which denied third-party defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Law Offices of Richard A. Fogel, P.C., Islip (Richard A. Fogel of counsel), for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Julian L. Kalkstein of counsel), for respondent. Before: Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Nardelli, Acosta and DeGrasse

  9. Freedman v. Chemical Constr

    43 N.Y.2d 260 (N.Y. 1977)   Cited 358 times
    Holding § 5-701 did not bar an oral agreement where no provision in the agreement directly or indirectly regulated the time for performance, despite the extreme unlikelihood of its completion within one year

  10. In re New York City Asbestos Litig

    7 A.D.3d 285 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)   Cited 143 times

    3547. Decided May 6, 2004. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen E. Freedman, J.), entered November 6, 2003, which denied defendant Keasbey Company's motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Catherine Oken, as Executrix for the Estate of Edwin Diedrich, Plaintiff-Respondent. A.C. S., et al., Defendants, Robert A. Keasbey Company, Defendant-Appellant. Greenberg Traurig LLP, New York (Loring I. Fenton of counsel), for appellant. Weitz Luxenberg, P.C., New York (Stephen

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 328,736 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Section R3212 - Motion for summary judgment

    N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 3212   Cited 33,802 times
    Providing for motions for summary judgment

  13. Section 4519 - Personal transaction or communication between witness and decedent or person with a mental illness

    N.Y. CPLR 4519   Cited 614 times

    Upon the trial of an action or the hearing upon the merits of a special proceeding, a party or a person interested in the event, or a person from, through or under whom such a party or interested person derives his interest or title by assignment or otherwise, shall not be examined as a witness in his own behalf or interest, or in behalf of the party succeeding to his title or interest against the executor, administrator or survivor of a deceased person or the committee of a person with a mental