§Why CasetextPricing

Maria Auqui,, et al., Respondents,v.Seven Thirty One Limited Partnership, et al., Appellants.

Brief

13 Cited authorities

  1. Jeffreys v. Griffin

    1 N.Y.3d 34 (N.Y. 2003)   Cited 217 times
    Holding that under New York law "issue preclusion gives conclusive effect to an administrative agency's quasi-judicial determination when two basic conditions are met: the issue sought to be precluded is identical to a material issue necessarily decided by the administrative agency in a prior proceeding; and there was a full and fair opportunity to contest this issue in the administrative tribunal"

  2. Matter of Balcerak v. the County of Nassau

    94 N.Y.2d 253 (N.Y. 1999)   Cited 62 times
    Holding that possession of New York driver's license was insufficient

  3. Werner v. State of New York

    53 N.Y.2d 346 (N.Y. 1981)   Cited 85 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that " claimant who applies for, is awarded and accepts workers' compensation . . . benefits is barred by the exclusive remedy and finality provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law from maintaining a [judicial] action against [his employer] for intentional assault."

  4. Akgul v. Prime Time Transp., Inc.

    293 A.D.2d 631 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)   Cited 31 times

    2001-05585 Argued March 12, 2002. April 22, 2002. In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated May 18, 2001, as (1) denied those branches of their motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and seventh causes of action, (2) failed to decide that branch of their motion which was to dismiss so much of

  5. O'Connor v. Midiria

    55 N.Y.2d 538 (N.Y. 1982)   Cited 53 times
    In O'Connor we also dismissed an action against a supervisory employee of the same employer, who was not himself accused of intentional misconduct, but was sued on the theory that he knew of the offender's "propensity" for such misconduct (55 NY2d at 540).

  6. Ott v. Barash

    109 A.D.2d 254 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)   Cited 44 times
    In Ott v. Barash, 109 A.D.2d 254, 491 N.Y.S.2d 661, 662 (2d Dep't 1985), the question before the court was whether the plaintiff, who was allegedly injured as a result of negligence of a New York state (the "State") employee could maintain a cause of action for negligence against that employee after having settled a prior action against the State to recover damages for the same injuries.

  7. O'Gorman v. Journal News Westchester

    2 A.D.3d 815 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)   Cited 18 times

    2002-10464. December 29, 2003. In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Nelson, J.), dated October 31, 2002, as denied their motion for partial summary judgment. Clark, Gagliardi Miller, P.C., White Plains, N.Y., (Lawrence T. D' Aloise, Jr., of counsel), for appellants. McAndrew, Conboy Prisco, LLP, Woodbury, N.Y., (Mary C. Villeck and Robert M. Ortiz of counsel), for respondent Journal News

  8. Crosby v. Workers' Comp

    57 N.Y.2d 305 (N.Y. 1982)   Cited 39 times
    Sustaining scheme requiring approval by the Workers' Compensation Board of a worker's attorneys' fees against state and federal constitutional challenges; federal equal protection challenge rejected on ground that statute "clearly promotes the over-all objective of ensuring adequate economic relief to the employee or his family"

  9. Casas v. Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc.

    105 A.D.3d 471 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 4 times

    2013-04-9 Luis CASAS, etc., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC., Defendant–Appellant. Armienti, DeBellis, Guglielmo & Rhoden, LLP, New York (Vanessa M. Corchia of counsel), for appellant. Annette G. Hasapidis, Mt. Kisco, for respondent. MAZZARELLI Armienti, DeBellis, Guglielmo & Rhoden, LLP, New York (Vanessa M. Corchia of counsel), for appellant. Annette G. Hasapidis, Mt. Kisco, for respondent. MAZZARELLI, J.P., ACOSTA, RENWICK, RICHTER, GISCHE, JJ. Order, Supreme

  10. Engel v. Calgon Corp.

    114 A.D.2d 108 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)   Cited 27 times

    February 6, 1986 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department. Walter A. Engel, Jr., pro se, and James W. Cooper for Walter A. Engel, Jr., petitioner. Epstein, Becker, Borsody Green (William A. Carmell of counsel), for respondent. MAHONEY, P.J. In April 1984, petitioner, age 51, filed a complaint with the State Division of Human Rights (Division), charging that he had been unlawfully discriminated against by Calgon Corporation on the basis of his age. Petitioner