§Why CasetextPricing

Matthew Isabella et al., Plaintiffs, Doris A. Hallock et al., Third-Party Respondents,v.Michael W. Koubek, Third-Party Appellant.

Brief

27 Cited authorities

  1. Flores v. Lower E. Side Serv

    4 N.Y.3d 363 (N.Y. 2005)   Cited 302 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an "unsigned contract may be enforceable"

  2. Raquet v. Braun

    90 N.Y.2d 177 (N.Y. 1997)   Cited 354 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Explaining the distinction between liability based on a duty running to the injured party and common-law indemnification, which involves "a separate duty owed [to] the indemnitee by the indemnitor"

  3. Patrolmen's Benevolent Ass'n v. City of New York

    41 N.Y.2d 205 (N.Y. 1976)   Cited 407 times

    Argued October 12, 1976 Decided December 22, 1976 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, GEORGE STARKE, J. W. Bernard Richland, Corporation Counsel (James G. Greilsheimer and L. Kevin Sheridan of counsel), New York City, for appellant. Frederick R. Livingston, Jay W. Waks and William C. Zifchak, New York City, for respondent. Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General (George D. Zuckerman and Samuel A. Hirshowitz of counsel), New York City, for intervenor

  4. Pennsylvania General Insurance v. Austin Powder Co.

    68 N.Y.2d 465 (N.Y. 1986)   Cited 288 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting the argument that the anti-subrogation rule was inapplicable because the additional insured did not itself pay premiums for the coverage because the costs for such premiums were likely priced in to the additional insured's contract with the primary insured

  5. Fleming v. Graham

    2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 2502 (N.Y. 2008)   Cited 113 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 41. Argued February 13, 2008. Decided March 20, 2008. APPEAL, by permission of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, from an order of that Court, entered November 14, 2006. The Appellate Division affirmed, insofar as appealed from, so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (David I. Schmidt, J.; op 2005 NY Slip Op 30268[U]), as had denied third-party defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint. The following

  6. In the Matter of Orens v. Novello

    99 N.Y.2d 180 (N.Y. 2002)   Cited 78 times
    Relying on Merriam–Webster's Collegiate Dictionary and Black's Law Dictionary in determining meaning of term “lay member”

  7. Majewski v. Broadalbin-Perth Central School District

    (N.Y. May. 12, 1998)   Cited 75 times
    In Majewski the New York Court of Appeals observed that "the date that legislation is to take effect is a separate question from whether the statute should apply to claims and rights then in existence."

  8. Tikhonova v. Ford Motor Co.

    4 N.Y.3d 621 (N.Y. 2005)   Cited 32 times
    In Tikhonova v. Ford Motor Company, 4 N.Y.3d 621, 624–25, 797 N.Y.S.2d 799, 830 N.E.2d 1127 (2005), the court permitted a lawsuit to proceed under Section 388 against the Ford Motor Company, the owner of the car, even though the driver of the car, a foreign diplomat driving in New York City, enjoyed full diplomatic immunity from suit.

  9. Naso v. Lafata

    4 N.Y.2d 585 (N.Y. 1958)   Cited 94 times
    In Naso v. Lafata (4 NY2d 585, 589), we explained that a worker injured in a car driven negligently by a coemployee (and in the course of their employment) may not resort to the Vehicle and Traffic Law for a cause of action against the car's owner.

  10. Shutter v. Philips Display Co.

    90 N.Y.2d 703 (N.Y. 1997)   Cited 22 times
    In Matter of Shutter v. Philips Display Components Co. (90 N.Y.2d 703, 708) the Court of Appeals interpreted Workers' Compensation Law § 29 Work. Comp.(1) and 29(4), stating, "[t]ogether, these terms indicate that the lien and offset tools [of the Workers' Compensation Law] may be applied only against recoveries from the third-party tortfeasors who are responsible for the claimant's injuries".

  11. Section 11 - Alternative remedy

    N.Y. Workers' Comp. Law § 11   Cited 1,860 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting a third party from suing an employer for workplace injuries sustained by the employer's employees, unless the employee suffered a statutorily defined grave injury

  12. Section 29 - Remedies of employees; subrogation

    N.Y. Workers' Comp. Law § 29   Cited 1,054 times

    1. If an employee entitled to compensation under this chapter be injured or killed by the negligence or wrong of another not in the same employ, such injured employee, or in case of death, his dependents, need not elect whether to take compensation and medical benefits under this chapter or to pursue his remedy against such other but may take such compensation and medical benefits and at any time either prior thereto or within six months after the awarding of compensation or within nine months after

  13. Section 388 - Negligence in use or operation of vehicle attributable to owner

    N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 388   Cited 943 times
    Holding owner liable for negligence of any permissive user

  14. Section 60-1.1 - Mandatory provisions

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 11 § 60-1.1   Cited 63 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Requiring automobile insurers to defend after exhaustion of the policy limits