§Why CasetextPricing

Rosemond Barney-Yeboah, Respondent,v.Metro-North Commuter Railroad, Appellant.

Brief

10 Cited authorities

  1. Morejon v. Rais Construction Co.

    7 N.Y.3d 203 (N.Y. 2006)   Cited 286 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that summary judgment for a plaintiff on a res ipsa loquitur theory should be a rare event, granted "only when the plaintiff's circumstantial proof is so convincing and the defendant's response so weak that the inference of defendant's negligence is inescapable."

  2. Dermatossian v. New York City Transit Authority

    67 N.Y.2d 219 (N.Y. 1986)   Cited 517 times
    Stating that under Section 5106, "insurers are obliged to honor [the claim] promptly or suffer the statutory penalties"

  3. Mejia v. New York City Transit Authority

    291 A.D.2d 225 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)   Cited 71 times

    5474 February 7, 2002. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered on or about June 27, 2001, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously modified, on the law, the complaint reinstated to the extent that it states a cause of action under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. JERILYN F. RUBIN, for plaintiffs-appellants

  4. Foltis, Inc., v. City of New York

    287 N.Y. 108 (N.Y. 1941)   Cited 261 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Foltis, Inc. v City of New York (287 NY 108), a pivotal case, we reversed the grant of a directed verdict for the plaintiff.

  5. Thomas v. New York University Medical Center

    283 A.D.2d 316 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)   Cited 27 times
    In Thomas v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 283 AD2d 316, 317 [2001], the Appellate Division, First Department granted a plaintiff in a negligence/medical malpractice action partial summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to res ipsa loquitur where the plaintiff was injured when, while anesthetized, the lower part of his body slid off the operating table during an operation.

  6. Nesbit v. Transit Auth

    170 A.D.2d 92 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)   Cited 32 times
    In Nesbit, the plaintiff's decedent was walking on the sidewalk when he was struck on the head by a bar and safety chain that fell from the defendant's elevated subway train (Nesbit, 170 A.D.2d at 94, 574 N.Y.S.2d 179). The safety chain and bar had been attached to the train between two of its cars (id.).

  7. Harmon v. United States Shoe Corp.

    262 A.D.2d 1010 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)   Cited 17 times
    Rejecting defendant's argument that plaintiff was required to establish actual or constructive notice of defect in res ipsa loquitur case

  8. Cebula v. Bonime

    92 A.D.2d 856 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)   Cited 9 times

    March 7, 1983 In an action to recover damages for wrongful death, etc., plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hyman, J.), dated May 18, 1982, which denied their motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, motion granted and matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a trial on the issue of damages. In this action arising out of an automobile accident in which the mouths of

  9. Notice v. Regent Hotel Corp.

    76 A.D.2d 820 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980)   Cited 9 times

    June 26, 1980 Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered December 18, 1979, granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs against defendant-appellant Regent Hotel Corp. on the issue of liability, is unanimously affirmed, with costs. In general the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur merely gives rise to a permissible inference of negligence, and does not justify either a directed verdict or summary judgment. (Foltis, Inc. v. City of New York, 287 N.Y. 108. ) But as the Court of Appeals pointed out

  10. Matter of Tilker

    67 A.D.2d 28 (N.Y. App. Div. 1979)

    March 29, 1979 Michael Alan Schwartz of counsel (Nicholas C. Cooper, attorney), for petitioner. No one appearing on behalf of respondent. Per Curiam. Petitioner moves for an order pursuant to subdivision 4 of section 90 Jud. of the Judiciary Law striking respondent's name from the roll of attorneys on the ground that respondent is subject to automatic disbarment following a Federal felony conviction. Respondent, admitted to practice by the Second Department on March 5, 1975 under the name Richard