§Why CasetextPricing

Christopher Hamilton, Appellant,v.John Miller et al., Respondents.

Brief

41 Cited authorities

  1. Zuckerman v. City of N.Y.

    49 N.Y.2d 557 (N.Y. 1980)   Cited 24,775 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 . . ."

  2. Andon v. 302-304 Mott Street Associates

    94 N.Y.2d 740 (N.Y. 2000)   Cited 401 times
    Holding that the "Appellate Division did not abuse its discretion in holding that [a doctor's] affidavit — on which defendants' request was based — was insufficient to justify compelling plaintiff-mother to take an IQ test"

  3. People v. Wesley

    83 N.Y.2d 417 (N.Y. 1994)   Cited 443 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that "[d]efendant's challenges to the population studies relied on by Lifecodes to estimate the probability of a coincidental match go not to admissibility, but to the weight of the evidence, which should be left to the trier of fact."

  4. Sweet v. Sheahan

    235 F.3d 80 (2d Cir. 2000)   Cited 356 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding rules were legislative where they were promulgated pursuant to explicit delegation of authority, refined and modified statutory guidelines, and agencies understood Congressional intent that they engage in legislative rulemaking

  5. GTF Marketing, Inc. v. Colonial Aluminum Sales, Inc.

    66 N.Y.2d 965 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 539 times
    Discussing summary judgment standard under New York law

  6. Kingsbrook v. Allstate

    61 A.D.3d 13 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)   Cited 160 times
    Stating that "[j]udicial notice has never been strictly limited to the constitutions, resolutions, ordinances, and regulations of government, but has been applied by case law to other public documents that are generated in a manner which assures their reliability," including "material derived from official government Web sites . . ."

  7. Those Certain Underwriters at Lloyds v. Occidental Gems, Inc.

    11 N.Y.3d 843 (N.Y. 2008)   Cited 94 times

    Argued October 21, 2008. Decided November 24, 2008. APPEALS, by permission of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, from an order of that Court, entered June 28, 2007. The Appellate Division, with two Justices dissenting, affirmed an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.; op 2006 NY Slip Op 30530[U]), which had denied plaintiffs' motion to confirm the report of the special referee directing disclosure, and granted defendant Occidental

  8. Dorset v. Cultural Resources

    46 N.Y.2d 358 (N.Y. 1978)   Cited 123 times
    In Hotel Dorset Co. v. Trust for Cultural Resources, 46 N.Y.2d 358, 385 N.E.2d 1284, 413 N.Y.S.2d 357 (1978), for example, the New York Court of Appeals found that a state statute apparently specifically tailored to provide benefits for the Museum of Modern Art was a general law because it applied to a class, "entry into which was governed by conformity to or compliance with specified conditions."

  9. Affronti v. Crosson

    95 N.Y.2d 713 (N.Y. 2001)   Cited 59 times
    Taking judicial notice of document taken from public records

  10. Brady v. Ottaway Newspapers

    63 N.Y.2d 1031 (N.Y. 1984)   Cited 85 times

    Argued October 17, 1984 Decided November 20, 1984 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, Abraham Isseks, J. Joseph Sluzar for defendants-appellants. Peter E. Bloom for plaintiffs-appellants. Robert Abrams, Attorney-General ( Jeffrey I. Slonim, Peter H. Schiff and Howard L. Zwickel of counsel), for respondent. MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. In this action for damages for libel, plaintiffs and defendants

  11. Section 3101 - Scope of disclosure

    N.Y. CPLR 3101   Cited 6,430 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Granting trial court broad discretion to penalize disclosure abuses

  12. Section 4852d - Disclosure of information concerning lead upon transfer of residential property

    42 U.S.C. § 4852d   Cited 112 times
    Giving the exact language to be required in the "Lead Warning Statement"

  13. Section 4851 - Findings

    42 U.S.C. § 4851   Cited 96 times
    Defining "lead based paint hazard" as "any condition that causes exposure to lead from lead-contaminated dust, lead-contaminated soil, lead-contaminated paint that is deteriorated or present in accessible surfaces, friction surfaces, or impact surfaces that would result in adverse human health effects. . . ."

  14. Section 4851a - Purposes

    42 U.S.C. § 4851a   Cited 20 times

    The purposes of this chapter are- (1) to develop a national strategy to build the infrastructure necessary to eliminate lead-based paint hazards in all housing as expeditiously as possible; (2) to reorient the national approach to the presence of lead-based paint in housing to implement, on a priority basis, a broad program to evaluate and reduce lead-based paint hazards in the Nation's housing stock; (3) to encourage effective action to prevent childhood lead poisoning by establishing a workable

  15. Section 202.17 - Exchange of medical reports in personal injury and wrongful death actions

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 202.17   Cited 179 times

    Except where the court otherwise directs, in all actions in which recovery is sought for personal injuries, disability or death, physical examinations and the exchange of medical information shall be governed by the provisions hereinafter set forth. (a) At any time after joinder of issue and service of a bill of particulars, the party to be examined or any other party may serve on all other parties a notice fixing the time and place of examination. Unless otherwise stipulated, the examination shall