§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of David H. Dalton, II, Respondent,v.Akron Central Schools, Appellant.

Brief

15 Cited authorities

  1. Winegrad v. N.Y. Univ. Medical Center

    64 N.Y.2d 851 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 18,073 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Reversing the motion court's order granting the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment where they failed to demonstrate, with admissible proof, that the claims against them should be dismissed

  2. Williams v. Nassau County Medical Center

    2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 2454 (N.Y. 2006)   Cited 446 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Denying leave to serve a late Notice of Claim beyond statutory period even where petitioner argued for infancy toll

  3. Pierson v. City of New York

    56 N.Y.2d 950 (N.Y. 1982)   Cited 448 times
    Holding that a court may not grant a late notice of claim under the Gen. Mun. Law after the Statute of Limitations has expired

  4. In re Kennelly

    33 A.D.3d 380 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 118 times
    Finding respondent was not prejudiced by affidavit submitted in reply because respondent submitted a surreply and addressed affidavit at oral argument

  5. Catherine G. v. Essex County

    3 N.Y.3d 175 (N.Y. 2004)   Cited 64 times
    Finding no reportable incident because Anthony was a 14-year-old boy and not legally responsible for his siblings

  6. Matter State v. Ford Motor Co.

    74 N.Y.2d 495 (N.Y. 1989)   Cited 73 times

    Argued October 12, 1989 Decided November 28, 1989 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, Harold J. Hughes, Jr., J. Jerome G. Shapiro, Philip A. Lacovara, William R. Stein and Ross Lipman for appellant. Robert Abrams, Attorney-General (Thomas G. Conway, O. Peter Sherwood, Peter H. Schiff, Rachel Kretser and Wayne L. Benjamin of counsel), for respondent. Richard J. Davis, Craig M.J. Allely, William H. Crabtree and Charles H. Lockwood, II, for Motor

  7. Wright v. City of New York

    99 A.D.3d 717 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 16 times

    2012-10-3 In the Matter of Sandra WRIGHT, et al., appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., respondents. Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C., New York, N.Y. (David B. Hamm and Linda M. Brown of counsel), for appellants. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Elizabeth S. Natrella and Lisa A. Giunta of counsel), for respondents. RANDALL T. ENG Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C., New York, N.Y. (David B. Hamm and Linda M. Brown of counsel), for appellants. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York

  8. Patron v. Patron

    40 N.Y.2d 582 (N.Y. 1976)   Cited 54 times

    Decided October 26, 1976 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, BEATRICE SHAINSWIT, J., MANUEL A. GOMEZ, J. Irving I. Erdheim, New York City, for appellant. Morris Pottish, New York City, for respondent. James Kaufman, New York City, for appellant-respondent. Jacob Freed Adelman, New York City, for respondent-appellant. Per Curiam. It may be useful to expose some of the mysteries which have evolved with respect to the disposition of appeals to our

  9. Matter Murray v. City of New York

    30 N.Y.2d 113 (N.Y. 1972)   Cited 52 times
    In Matter of Murray v. City of New York (30 N.Y.2d 113, 119-120, supra) the court unanimously held that the foregoing is a permissible and reasonable interpretation of the statute as applied to such facts.

  10. Niagara v. Town of Amherst

    70 A.D.3d 1440 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)   Cited 3 times
    Agreeing that the new named defendant was in privity with the prior defendant, and was thus entitled to invoke res judicata as a defense