§Why CasetextPricing

Marie Bradley,, et al., Appellants,v.HWA 1290 III LLC, et al., Respondents.

Brief

73 Cited authorities

  1. Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp

    68 N.Y.2d 320 (N.Y. 1986)   Cited 21,199 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Finding summary judgment appropriate by relying on a treating doctor's unrebutted deposition testimony

  2. Zuckerman v. City of N.Y.

    49 N.Y.2d 557 (N.Y. 1980)   Cited 24,806 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Granting summary judgment as the city's arguments were considered speculation and this was "patently inadequate to establish the existence of a factual issue requiring a trial . . ."

  3. Winegrad v. N.Y. Univ. Medical Center

    64 N.Y.2d 851 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 18,103 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Reversing 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

  4. Vega v. Restani Constr. Corp.

    2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 1148 (N.Y. 2012)   Cited 2,805 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming denial of summary judgment

  5. Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History

    67 N.Y.2d 836 (N.Y. 1986)   Cited 3,225 times
    Holding that the defendant was not on constructive notice because there was no evidence that the defendant or anyone else observed the dangerous condition before the plaintiff's fall

  6. Jacobsen v. N.Y. City Health & Hosp. Corp.

    2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 2098 (N.Y. 2014)   Cited 864 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an "employer normally cannot obtain summary judgment on a State HRL claim unless the record demonstrates that there is no triable issue of fact as to whether the employer duly considered the requested accommodation;" but "at trial on a State HRL claim, the plaintiff employee still bears the burden of proving the existence of a reasonable accommodation that would have enabled the employee to perform the essential functions of his or her position"

  7. William J. Jenack Estate Appraisers & Auctioneers, Inc. v. Rabizadeh

    2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 8373 (N.Y. 2013)   Cited 473 times

    2013-12-17 WILLIAM J. JENACK ESTATE APPRAISERS AND AUCTIONEERS, INC., Appellant, v. Albert RABIZADEH, Respondent. Ostrer & Hoovler, P.C., Chester (Benjamin Ostrer and Cynthia Dolan of counsel), for appellant. Michael S. Winokur, Flushing, for respondent. RIVERA Ostrer & Hoovler, P.C., Chester (Benjamin Ostrer and Cynthia Dolan of counsel), for appellant. Michael S. Winokur, Flushing, for respondent. Cahill Partners LLP, New York City (John R. Cahill and Ronald W. Adelman of counsel), for Sotheby's

  8. Ortiz v. Varsity Holdings, LLC

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 9161 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 489 times
    Denying the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment on his § 240 claim where there is any issue of fact as to whether there is an enumerated safety device that could have prevented his fall

  9. Diaz v. New York Downtown Hospital

    99 N.Y.2d 542 (N.Y. 2002)   Cited 599 times
    Granting summary judgment to plaintiff, noting that plaintiff's expert failed "to provide any factual basis for her conclusion that the guidelines establish or are reflective of a generally-accepted standard or practice"

  10. Amatulli v. Delhi Constr Corp.

    77 N.Y.2d 525 (N.Y. 1991)   Cited 728 times
    Holding that a pool manufacturer was not held liable for injuries sustained when a plaintiff dove headfirst into a shallow above-ground pool where the manufacturer provided explicit instructions requiring above-ground installation but the user installed the pool in the ground thereby obscuring the shallow nature of the pool's depth

  11. Section 500.11 - Alternative procedure for selected appeals

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 500.11   Cited 536 times

    (a) On its own motion, the court may review selected appeals by an alternative procedure. Such appeals shall be determined on the intermediate appellate court record or appendix and briefs, the writings in the courts below and additional letter submissions on the merits. The clerk of the court shall notify all parties by letter when an appeal has been selected for review pursuant to this section. Appellant may request such review in its preliminary appeal statement. Respondent may request such review

  12. Section 1910.132 - General requirements

    29 C.F.R. § 1910.132   Cited 110 times   67 Legal Analyses
    Mandating PPE "wherever it is necessary by reason of hazards of processes or environment, chemical hazards, radiological hazards, or mechanical irritants encountered in a manner capable of causing injury or impairment in the function of any part of the body through absorption, inhalation or physical contact"

  13. Section 500.13 - Content and form of briefs in normal course appeals

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 500.13

    (a) Content. All briefs shall conform to the requirements of section 500.1 of this Part and contain a table of contents, a table of cases and authorities, questions presented, point headings, and, if necessary, a disclosure statement pursuant to section 500.1(f) of this Part. Such disclosure statement shall be included before the table of contents in the party's principal brief. Appellant's brief shall include a statement showing that the court has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and to review

  14. Appendix C to Subpart I of Part 1910 - Personal Fall Protection Systems Non-Mandatory Guidelines

    29 C.F.R. § 1910 app C to Subpart I of Part 1910   2 Legal Analyses

    The following information generally applies to all personal fall protection systems and is intended to assist employers and employees comply with the requirements of § 1910.140 for personal fall protection systems. (a) Planning considerations. It is important for employers to plan prior to using personal fall protection systems. Probably the most overlooked component of planning is locating suitable anchorage points. Such planning should ideally be done before the structure or building is constructed