§Why CasetextPricing

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

Brief

7 Cited authorities

  1. Matter of Albano v. Kirby

    36 N.Y.2d 526 (N.Y. 1975)   Cited 233 times

    Argued March 19, 1975 Decided May 7, 1975 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, JOSEPH LIFF, J. Frederick Fagelson for appellant. George W. Percy, Jr., County Attorney (Patrick A. Sweeney of counsel), for respondents. COOKE, J. We review here the discharge of a social services investigator at the end of his 16th week of service, following his appointment from a competitive civil service list for a probationary term of 26 weeks, under county civil

  2. Hinchey v. Sellers

    7 N.Y.2d 287 (N.Y. 1959)   Cited 118 times
    Finding privity “by virtue of the indemnitor-indemnitee relationship existing between an insurer and an insured”

  3. 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"

  4. 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

  5. Matter of Engel v. Calgon Corporation

    69 N.Y.2d 753 (N.Y. 1987)   Cited 15 times

    Submitted January 9, 1987 Decided February 10, 1987 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department. James W. Cooper for appellant. William A. Carmell, Richard J. Reibstein and Joy D. Oberman for Calgon Corporation, respondent. Order affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the opinion by Presiding Justice A. Franklin Mahoney at the Appellate Division ( 114 A.D.2d 108; see also, Matter of Guimarales [New York City Bd. of Educ. — Roberts], 68 N.Y.2d

  6. Shanahan v. Monarch Engineering Co.

    219 N.Y. 469 (N.Y. 1916)   Cited 71 times
    Noting that part of the tradeoff between employers and employees includes an employer not needing to defend against "unjust or excessive claims"

  7. Hunter v. N.Y., O. W.R.R. Co.

    116 N.Y. 615 (N.Y. 1889)   Cited 102 times

    Argued October 30, 1889 Decided December 3, 1889 William Vanamee for appellant. T.A. Read for respondent. BROWN, J. Assuming that the plaintiff was struck upon the head by the brick arch within the tunnel, and that he was, as a result of that blow, thrown from the cars and injured, I think there was ample evidence for the jury to determine that the defendant was guilty of neglect producing the accident, and that the plaintiff was free from carelessness contributing to it. The jury were warranted