37 Cited authorities

Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc.
518 U.S. 415 (1996) Cited 2,312 times
Holding that district courts have the "primary responsibility" for applying the state-law excessiveness standard because they have "the unique opportunity to consider the evidence in the living courtroom context, while appellate judges see only the cold paper record." (cleaned up)
Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co.
455 U.S. 422 (1982) Cited 2,975 times
Holding that a deprivation resulting from a mistake in established state procedures is not “random and unauthorized”
Johnson v. Celotex Corp.
899 F.2d 1281 (2d Cir. 1990) Cited 551 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding that "courts have taken the view that considerations of judicial economy favor consolidation"
City of New York v. Maul
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 3797 (N.Y. 2010) Cited 228 times
Finding federal jurisprudence persuasive in analyzing issues under CPLR Article 9
People v. Morris
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 6633 (N.Y. 2013) Cited 174 times
Holding that evidence of a 911 call accusing defendant of robbing someone at gunpoint was relevant background information that helped explain the aggressive conduct of police when arresting the defendant
Hendrix v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.
776 F.2d 1492 (11th Cir. 1985) Cited 311 times
Approving a joint trial where it prevented "wasteful relitigation, avoided duplication of judicial effort, and did not materially prejudice [the other party's] rights"
Konstantin v. 630 Third Ave. Assocs. (In re N.Y.C. Asbestos Litig.)
121 A.D.3d 230 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014) Cited 115 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that a duty to warn may arise in such a situation
Malcolm v. National Gypsum Co.
995 F.2d 346 (2d Cir. 1993) Cited 174 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding "that the sheer breadth of the evidence made [such] precautions feckless in preventing jury confusion"
Donlon v. City of New York
284 A.D.2d 13 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001) Cited 134 times
Noting that Section 5501(c) "was adopted as a reform to the former 'shock the conscience' " standard for appellate review and it, "in design and operation, influences outcomes by tightening the range of tolerable awards" (alteration adopted) (quoting Gasperini, 518 U.S. at 425, 116 S.Ct. 2211)
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.

In the Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation.---------------------------------Ruby E. Konstantin,, Respondent,v.630 Third Avenue Associates, et al., Defendants, Tishman Liquidating Corporation, Appellant.

37 Cited authorities

Holding that district courts have the "primary responsibility" for applying the state-law excessiveness standard because they have "the unique opportunity to consider the evidence in the living courtroom context, while appellate judges see only the cold paper record." (cleaned up)

Holding that a deprivation resulting from a mistake in established state procedures is not “random and unauthorized”

Finding that "courts have taken the view that considerations of judicial economy favor consolidation"

Finding federal jurisprudence persuasive in analyzing issues under CPLR Article 9

Holding that evidence of a 911 call accusing defendant of robbing someone at gunpoint was relevant background information that helped explain the aggressive conduct of police when arresting the defendant

Approving a joint trial where it prevented "wasteful relitigation, avoided duplication of judicial effort, and did not materially prejudice [the other party's] rights"

Holding that a duty to warn may arise in such a situation

Holding "that the sheer breadth of the evidence made [such] precautions feckless in preventing jury confusion"

Noting that Section 5501(c) "was adopted as a reform to the former 'shock the conscience' " standard for appellate review and it, "in design and operation, influences outcomes by tightening the range of tolerable awards" (alteration adopted) (quoting Gasperini, 518 U.S. at 425, 116 S.Ct. 2211)

In Geraci, the defendant sent a letter to the Board of Fire Commissioners, and, more than three years later, a newspaper published the letter.