§Why CasetextPricing

Susan M. Coffed, as Administrator of the Estate of James B. Coffed, Deceased, Appellant,v.John N. McCarthy et al., Respondents.

Brief

34 Cited authorities

  1. Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp

    68 N.Y.2d 320 (N.Y. 1986)   Cited 21,160 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 24,783 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. Vega v. Restani Constr. Corp.

    2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 1148 (N.Y. 2012)   Cited 2,797 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming denial of summary judgment

  4. Ayotte v. Gervasio

    81 N.Y.2d 1062 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 1,649 times

    Decided June 15, 1993 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, Jan H. Plumadore, J. Saul Aronson, Albany, and Francis E. Lehner for appellants. DeLorenzo, Gordon, Pasquariello, Weiskopf Harding, P.C., Schenectady (Marshall P. Richer of counsel), for respondents. MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the negative. "[T]he proponent of a summary judgment motion must make

  5. Sillman v. Twentieth Century-Fox

    3 N.Y.2d 395 (N.Y. 1957)   Cited 5,987 times   2 Legal Analyses
    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of the existence of any assignment, it shall have the right to withhold payments until the assignment is cancelled or withdrawn"

  6. Ortiz v. Varsity Holdings, LLC

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 9161 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 483 times
    Denying the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment on his § 240 claim where there is any issue of fact as to whether there is an enumerated safety device that could have prevented his fall

  7. Rivers v. Birnbaum

    102 A.D.3d 26 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 215 times
    Finding affidavit invalid and inadmissible where it was "not signed, not dated, and not notarized"

  8. Asabor v. Archdiocese of N.Y.

    102 A.D.3d 524 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 144 times
    Stating that court must "draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable" to the non-movant on a motion for summary judgment

  9. Pollack v. Margolin

    84 A.D.3d 1341 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 140 times

    No. 2011-00401. May 31, 2011. In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pitts, J.), dated November 15, 2010, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs. David J. Sobel, P.C., Smithtown, N.Y., for appellants. Silverstein Kahn, P.C., Huntington, N.Y. (Larry Silverstein of counsel), for respondent. Before: Angiolillo, J.P., Dickerson, Belen

  10. Dollas v. W.R. Grace and Company

    225 A.D.2d 319 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)   Cited 172 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is the duty of the trier of fact to weigh the value of the presented evidence and resolve any outstanding conflicts between plaintiff's allegations and the documentary evidence