§Why CasetextPricing

Alex Irrizarry Deleon, Respondent,v.New York City Sanitation Department, et al., Appellants.

Brief

49 Cited authorities

  1. Misicki v. Caradonna

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 3764 (N.Y. 2009)   Cited 626 times
    Holding that 12 N.Y.C.R.R. § 23-9.2 imposes a nondelegable duty to make "necessary repairs or replacement" upon discovery of any unsafe condition

  2. Cabrera v. Rodriguez

    72 A.D.3d 553 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)   Cited 396 times
    In Cabrera v. Rodriguez, 72 A.D.3d 553 (1st Dept. 2010), the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed it's holding that the assertion that a rear end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle, even with allegations of non-functioning lights on the lead vehicle, is prima facie establishment of liability in rear-end collision cases.

  3. Riley v. County of Broome

    95 N.Y.2d 455 (N.Y. 2000)   Cited 409 times
    Holding that the legislative history of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 evinces an intent to impose “a minimum standard of care” on operators of vehicles engaged in roadwork

  4. Saarinen v. Kerr

    84 N.Y.2d 494 (N.Y. 1994)   Cited 413 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a standard of "reckless disregard for the safety of others" required evidence that defendant had engaged in conduct "of an unreasonable character in disregard of a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow and ha[d] done so with conscious indifference to the outcome"

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

    41 N.Y.2d 205 (N.Y. 1976)   Cited 422 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

  6. Kabir v. County of Monroe

    16 N.Y.3d 217 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 129 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding rear-end collision is prima facie evidence of negligence of the operator of the rear vehicle under state law

  7. Campbell v. City of Elmira

    84 N.Y.2d 505 (N.Y. 1994)   Cited 173 times
    In Campbell v. City of Elmira, 84 N.Y.2d 505, 620 N.Y.S.2d 302, 644 N.E.2d 993 (1994), the court found that there were sharply disputed facts and inferences that justified upholding a jury's finding of recklessness, thus distinguishing Saarinen. Campbell, 620 N YS.2d at 306-07, 644 N.E.2d at 997-98.

  8. Francisco v. Schoepfer

    30 A.D.3d 275 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 116 times

    7432. June 20, 2006. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered June 23, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant Kim Joonsuk's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against him, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant Kim Joonsuk dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against him. Sweetbaum Sweetbaum, Lake Success

  9. Criscione v. City of New York

    97 N.Y.2d 152 (N.Y. 2001)   Cited 125 times
    In Criscione, a police officer was involved in a car accident while responding to a dispatch call to investigate a family dispute.

  10. Corrigan v. Porter Cab Corp.

    101 A.D.3d 471 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 66 times
    Granting front defendants' motion for summary judgment of claims and cross-claims where plaintiff and co-defendants had failed to rebut prima facie negligence case; held that co-defendant's "testimony that [front defendants'] vehicle stopped suddenly is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact"

  11. Section 1104 - Authorized emergency vehicles

    N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 1104   Cited 457 times
    Concerning "emergency vehicles" defined in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 101

  12. Section 1103 - Public officers and employees to obey title; exceptions

    N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 1103   Cited 162 times

    (a) The provisions of this title applicable to the drivers of vehicles upon the highways shall apply to drivers of all vehicles owned or operated by the United States, this state, or any county, city, town, district, or any other political subdivision of the state, except as provided in this section and subject to such specific exceptions as are set forth in this title with reference to authorized emergency vehicles. (b) Unless specifically made applicable, the provisions of this title, except the

  13. Section 114-B - Emergency operation

    N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 114-B   Cited 127 times
    Defining "emergency operation" as the operation "of an authorized emergency vehicle, when such vehicle is . . . responding to" a police call