§Why CasetextPricing

Dolores Parietti et al., Appellants,v.Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

Brief

16 Cited authorities

  1. Zuckerman v. City of N.Y.

    49 N.Y.2d 557 (N.Y. 1980)   Cited 24,777 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. Winegrad v. N.Y. Univ. Medical Center

    64 N.Y.2d 851 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 18,070 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

  3. Sillman v. Twentieth Century-Fox

    3 N.Y.2d 395 (N.Y. 1957)   Cited 5,986 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that provision prohibited assignments when the provision stated, in part, that "neither party hereto shall assign this agreement . . . without the prior written consent of the other party," and "that [defendant] shall not be required to recognize any assignments; and that if [defendant] shall receive notice of the existence of any assignment, it shall have the right to withhold payments until the assignment is cancelled or withdrawn"

  4. Hutchinson v. Sheridan Hill House Corp.

    2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 7578 (N.Y. 2015)   Cited 313 times
    In Hutchinson, the Court of Appeals determined that the defendants in one of the cases at issue, who had moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, failed to make a prima facie showing that a defect was trivial where photographs of the defect were "indistinct" and the defendants presented no evidence regarding the measurements of the defect (Hutchinson v. Sheridan Hill House Corp., 26 N.Y.3d at 82–83, 19 N.Y.S.3d 802, 41 N.E.3d 766).

  5. Birnbaum v. New York Racing Assn

    57 A.D.3d 598 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)   Cited 329 times
    Reversing grant of summary judgment in a slip-and-fall action to defendant whose manager "merely referred to the subject of the racetrack's general daily cleaning practices" and "tendered no evidence regarding any particularized or specific inspection or stair-cleaning procedure in the area of the plaintiff's fall on the date of the accident"

  6. Negri v. Stop and Shop, Inc.

    65 N.Y.2d 625 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 678 times
    Holding that circumstantial evidence that broken jars of baby food were on the floor for fifteen to twenty minutes tended to show that supermarket had constructive notice of the dangerous condition

  7. Technicon v. American Home

    74 N.Y.2d 66 (N.Y. 1989)   Cited 294 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "discharges that are either nonsudden or nonaccidental block the exception from nullifying the pollution exclusion"

  8. Pluhar v. Town of Southampton

    29 A.D.3d 975 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 74 times

    2005-03168. May 30, 2006. In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), dated February 9, 2005, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Thomas J. LaFauci, P.C., Smithtown, N.Y., for appellant. Sledjeski Tierney, PLLC (Anita Nissan Yehuda, Roslyn Heights, N.Y., of counsel), for respondents. Before: Crane, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano and Dillon, JJ., concur. Ordered

  9. Mehta v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co.

    129 A.D.3d 1037 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)   Cited 52 times
    Holding that ten to fifteen minutes was not a sufficient amount of time to establish constructive notice

  10. Zerilli v. Western Beef Retail

    72 A.D.3d 681 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)   Cited 30 times

    No. 2009-00611. April 6, 2010. In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), entered December 29, 2008, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Duffy Duffy, Uniondale, N.Y. (Michael A. Santo of counsel), for appellants. Torino Bernstein, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Christine M. Capitolo of counsel), for respondent. Before: Fisher, J.P., Santucci, Eng and Chambers

  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