§Why CasetextPricing

John P. Mery et al., Appellants,v.Frank Eginger, Defendant, Society of Friends Church,, Respondent.

Brief

34 Cited authorities

  1. Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp

    68 N.Y.2d 320 (N.Y. 1986)   Cited 21,204 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Finding summary judgment appropriate by relying on a treating doctor's unrebutted deposition testimony

  2. 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

  3. Sillman v. Twentieth Century-Fox

    3 N.Y.2d 395 (N.Y. 1957)   Cited 5,993 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of the existence of any assignment, it shall have the right to withhold payments until the assignment is cancelled or withdrawn"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. Ortiz v. Varsity Holdings, LLC

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 9161 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 492 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

  5. Sanchez v. State of New York

    99 N.Y.2d 247 (N.Y. 2002)   Cited 483 times
    Holding that State may be on constructive notice "from its knowledge of risks to a class of inmates based on the institution's expertise or prior experience, or from its own policies and practices designed to address such risks"

  6. Hutchinson v. Sheridan Hill House Corp.

    2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 7578 (N.Y. 2015)   Cited 314 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).

  7. Murray v. City of New York

    43 N.Y.2d 400 (N.Y. 1977)   Cited 476 times
    Holding that workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy as a matter of substantive law, and hence, whenever it appears from the plaintiff's pleadings, bill of particulars, or the facts that the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant, the obligation of alleging and proving noncoverage or applicability of workers' compensation benefits falls on the plaintiff; the court continued, stating that waiver may be accomplished by ignoring the issue to the point of final disposition

  8. People v. Geraci

    85 N.Y.2d 359 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 240 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Adopting procedure and burden of proof established by Holtzman

  9. Hayes v. Riverbend Hous. Comp

    40 A.D.3d 500 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)   Cited 65 times

    May 29, 2007. Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered December 5, 2005, which denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants dismissing the complaint. Before: Saxe, J.P., Sullivan, Williams, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ. Plaintiff sustained injuries when, in the course of performing repair work at premises owned and managed

  10. Weller v. Colls. of Senecas

    217 A.D.2d 280 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)   Cited 76 times
    In Weller v. Colleges of the Senecas (217 AD2d 280), a student riding a bicycle at night on a college campus pathway was injured when his wheel struck a tree root. Since the root was not an inherent feature of such a pathway and the student did not observe it until the accident, he was held not to have assumed the risk that he might strike it.