§Why CasetextPricing

Brenda Cornell, Respondent,v.360 West 51st Street Realty, LLC, et al., Defendants, 360 West 51st Street Corp., Appellant.

Brief

29 Cited authorities

  1. Parker v. Mobil Oil Corp.

    7 N.Y.3d 434 (N.Y. 2006)   Cited 377 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "standards promulgated by regulatory agencies as protective measures are inadequate to demonstrate legal causation"

  2. People v. Wesley

    83 N.Y.2d 417 (N.Y. 1994)   Cited 443 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that "[d]efendant's challenges to the population studies relied on by Lifecodes to estimate the probability of a coincidental match go not to admissibility, but to the weight of the evidence, which should be left to the trier of fact."

  3. Bender v. City of New York

    78 F.3d 787 (2d Cir. 1996)   Cited 328 times
    Holding that plaintiffs who have suffered actual injury cannot obtain compensatory damage awards from a defendant if they have already obtained an award that fully compensates them for the injury from another defendant

  4. Frye v. United States

    293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923)   Cited 4,497 times   50 Legal Analyses
    Holding that expert testimony must be based on scientific methods that are sufficiently established and accepted

  5. Walker v. Sheldon

    10 N.Y.2d 401 (N.Y. 1961)   Cited 757 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that punitive damages are available "where the fraud, aimed at the public generally, is gross and involves high moral culpability"

  6. Prozeralik v. Capital Cities

    82 N.Y.2d 466 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 220 times
    Holding in defamation action that an award of punitive damages requires "circumstances of aggravation or outrage, such as spite or malice, or a fraudulent or evil motive on the part of the defendant, or such a conscious and deliberate disregard of the interests of others that the conduct may be called willful or wanton"

  7. Wright v. Willamette Industries, Inc.

    91 F.3d 1105 (8th Cir. 1996)   Cited 178 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding opinion of proposed expert, that complaints of residents near manufacturing plant were more probably than not related to their exposure to formaldehyde from plant, was not based on any knowledge about what amounts of wood fibers impregnated with formaldehyde involve appreciable risk of harm to human beings who breathe them, and so district court should have excluded expert's testimony

  8. Barash v. Pa. Term. Real Estate Corp.

    26 N.Y.2d 77 (N.Y. 1970)   Cited 357 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that "the landlord's wrongful acts substantially and materially deprive[d] the tenant of the beneficial use and enjoyment of the premises"

  9. Marsh v. Smyth

    12 A.D.3d 307 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)   Cited 97 times
    In Marsh (supra) the court reasoned that "in circumstances such as these, the question of whether the challenged testimony is admissible should not involve weighing the number of experts that concur in the expert's opinion against the number that do not, or independently deciding on the soundness of the competing experts' views.

  10. People v. Wernick

    89 N.Y.2d 111 (N.Y. 1996)   Cited 110 times
    Finding that neonaticide syndrome is "not generally recognized in the relevant medical context and community"