§Why CasetextPricing

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

Brief

9 Cited authorities

  1. Kaufman v. Lilly Co.

    65 N.Y.2d 449 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 996 times
    Recognizing that the doctrine is "based upon the general notion that it is not fair to permit a party to relitigate an issue that has already been decided against it"

  2. Gilberg v. Barbieri

    53 N.Y.2d 285 (N.Y. 1981)   Cited 430 times
    Concluding conviction for petty offense of harassment did not preclude defendant from contesting merits of subsequent civil suit for assault where defendant did not have incentive to litigate thoroughly in prior action given the "minor" significance of the petty violation, the lack of a right to a jury trial, the lack of vigor typical of the defense of such violations, and the lack of any indication that the parties anticipated the determination would be used against defendant in later litigation

  3. Auqui v. Seven Thirty One Limited Partnership

    83 A.D.3d 407 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 17 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 3277. April 5, 2011. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered October 7, 2009, which, insofar as appealed from, as limited by the briefs, granted defendants' motion to preclude plaintiffs from litigating the issue of plaintiff Jose Verdugo's accident-related disability beyond January 24, 2006, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about December 8, 2009, which, inter alia, upon

  4. Dietrick v. Kemper Ins. Co.

    76 N.Y.2d 248 (N.Y. 1990)   Cited 40 times
    In Dietrick v. Kemper Ins. Co. (76 N.Y.2d 248), the Court of Appeals, in attempting to integrate two not entirely compatible statutes, resolved the resultant ambiguity in favor of the injured party and concluded that permanent partial disability should be deemed included within the definition of first-party benefits (supra, at 253; see also, Matter of Johnson v. Buffalo Erie County Private Indus. Council, 192 A.D.2d 763, 764; butsee, Matter of Simmons v. St. Lawrence County CDP, 147 A.D.2d 323).

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. Auqui v. Seven Thirty One Ltd. P'ship

    2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 950 (N.Y. 2013)

    No. 18 02-14-2013 Maria Auqui, & c., et al., Respondents, v. Seven Thirty One Limited Partnership, et al., Appellants. Richard J. Montes, for appellants. Annette G. Hasapidis, for respondents. New York State Trial Lawyers Association, amicus curiae. Richard J. Montes, for appellants. Annette G. Hasapidis, for respondents. New York State Trial Lawyers Association, amicus curiae. MEMORANDUM: The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, defendants' motion to preclude plaintiffs

  8. 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

  9. Section 301.1 - Fees for attendance of physicians and podiatrists at hearings

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 12 § 301.1   Cited 1 times

    Whenever the attendance of the injured employee's treating or consul- tant physician or podiatrist at a hearing is required, such p hysician or podiatrist shall be entitled to an attendance fee of $450. In instances involving special circumstances, should the Board in its judg- ment deem that the appropriate fee specified above is inadequate, the Board may fix a fee in an amount gr eater than said sum for such hearing, such increased fee to be comme nsurate with the circumstances in the particular