§Why CasetextPricing

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

Brief

23 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. 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

  3. Barbuto v. Winthrop University Hospital

    305 A.D.2d 623 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)   Cited 191 times

    2002-10185 Argued May 6, 2003. May 27, 2003. In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendants Robert Klein and Steven Geier appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.), dated October 16, 2002, as granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to renew their prior motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and, upon renewal, vacated its prior order, dated July 23, 2002, granting the motion for summary

  4. 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

  5. Nonnon v. City of N.Y

    32 A.D.3d 91 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 62 times

    6099. June 6, 2006. APPEAL from an order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alexander W Hunter, Jr., J.), entered October 16, 2003. The order denied defendant City of New York's motion to dismiss on the merits all of the complaints in actions for personal injuries and wrongful death allegedly caused by exposure to toxic substances in a landfill and to dismiss certain of the claims as time-barred. Nonnon v City of New York, 1 Misc 3d 897, modified. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York

  6. Fraser v. 301–52 Townhouse Corp.

    57 A.D.3d 416 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)   Cited 54 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the nonmoving party's delayed disclosure amounted to good cause for the moving party's delay in making a motion for summary judgment

  7. Lustenring v. AC&S, Inc., et al.

    13 A.D.3d 69 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)   Cited 50 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Lustenring, competent evidence was provided of long periods of daily working in dust laden with asbestos generated from products containing asbestos, and valid expert testimony that dust raised from manipulating asbestos products, "necessarily" contains enough asbestos to cause mesothelioma (13 A.D.3d at 70, 786 N.Y.S.2d 20).

  8. Marso v. Novak

    42 A.D.3d 377 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)   Cited 37 times
    In Marso v. Novak, 42 A.D.3d 377, 840 N.Y.S.2d 53 [1st Dept., 2007] the court refined its earlier pronouncement in Nonnon.

  9. Jackson v. Nutmeg Technologies

    43 A.D.3d 599 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)   Cited 36 times

    No. 502166. August 9, 2007. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Teresi, J.), entered October 4, 2006 in Albany County, which, inter alia, denied defendant's motion to preclude the testimony of plaintiffs' expert witnesses and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. McGivney Kluger P.C., Syracuse (Richard Leff of counsel), for appellant. The LaFave Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Delmar (Cynthia S. LaFave of counsel) and The DeLorenzo Law Firm, L.L.P., Schenectady (Thomas E. DeLorenzo of counsel)

  10. Gayle v. Port Auth. of N.Y. N.J

    6 A.D.3d 183 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)   Cited 22 times

    3296. 3297. 3298. Decided April 1, 2004. Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jerry Crispino, J.), entered May 2, 2002, which denied defendant's motion for a new trial premised on Judiciary Law § 21, and order, same court and Justice, entered June 17, 2002, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, granted defendant's motion to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence only insofar as to order a new trial unless plaintiffs stipulated to reduce plaintiff Phillip