Winegrad v. N.Y. Univ. Medical Center
64 N.Y.2d 851 (N.Y. 1985) Cited 18,082 times 8 Legal AnalysesReversing 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
Vega v. Restani Constr. Corp.
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 1148 (N.Y. 2012) Cited 2,797 times 1 Legal AnalysesAffirming denial of summary judgment
Sillman v. Twentieth Century-Fox
3 N.Y.2d 395 (N.Y. 1957) Cited 5,987 times 2 Legal AnalysesFinding that provision prohibited assignments when the provision stated, in part, that "neither party hereto shall assign this agreement . . . without the prior written consent of the other party," and "that [defendant] shall not be required to recognize any assignments; and that if [defendant] shall receive notice of the existence of any assignment, it shall have the right to withhold payments until the assignment is cancelled or withdrawn"
Trincere v. County of Suffolk
90 N.Y.2d 976 (N.Y. 1997) Cited 1,009 timesHolding that injuries resulting from trivial defects not actionable
Capelin Assoc. v. Globe Mfg. Corp.
34 N.Y.2d 338 (N.Y. 1974) Cited 1,468 timesHolding that "[o]n a motion for summary judgment the court is not to determine credibility, but whether there exists a factual issue, or if arguably there is a genuine issue of fact"
Roth v. Barreto
289 A.D.2d 557 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001) Cited 560 times2001-11062, 2001-03456 Submitted December 5, 2001. December 31, 2001. In two related actions to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., Vincenzo's of North Merrick Ltd., a defendant in both actions, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Palmieri, J.), entered March 15, 2001, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaints in both actions insofar as asserted against it. Congdon, Flaherty, O'Callaghan, Reid, Donlon, Travis Fishlinger, Garden City, N
Birnbaum v. New York Racing Assn
57 A.D.3d 598 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008) Cited 329 timesReversing grant of summary judgment in a slip-and-fall action to defendant whose manager "merely referred to the subject of the racetrack's general daily cleaning practices" and "tendered no evidence regarding any particularized or specific inspection or stair-cleaning procedure in the area of the plaintiff's fall on the date of the accident"
O'Neill v. Town of Fishkill
134 A.D.2d 487 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987) Cited 449 timesNovember 23, 1987 Appeal from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Rosenblatt, J.). Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied. On September 30, 1980, after extended negotiations, the parties executed a contract whereby the defendants leased 172 acres of unimproved land from the plaintiff to use as a sanitary landfill site. Pursuant to the contract, the parties agreed that the plaintiff would be paid a monthly fee of $1,000 and 75 cents per yard for each yard
Speller v. Sears, Roebuck Co.
100 N.Y.2d 38 (N.Y. 2003) Cited 206 timesHolding that where the defendants argued that the fire in question had been caused not by their refrigerator's wiring, but rather by the plaintiff's stove, "[i]n order to withstand summary judgment, plaintiffs were required to come forward with competent evidence excluding the stove as the origin of the fire"
Kosson v. Algaze
84 N.Y.2d 1019 (N.Y. 1995) Cited 187 timesDecided January 17, 1995 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Stuart C. Cohen, J. Ravi Batra, New York City, for appellant. Proskauer Rose Goetz Mendelsohn, New York City (Edward S. Kornreich and J. Elizabeth Scherl of counsel), for respondents. MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. In order to defeat defendants' motion for summary judgment, plaintiff had the burden of showing "'"facts sufficient to require