§Why CasetextPricing

Rafael Batista, Appellant,v.Manhattanville College, et al., Respondents, The Female Academy of the Sacred Heart, Defendant.

Brief

25 Cited authorities

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

    64 N.Y.2d 851 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 18,101 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

  2. Blake v. Neighborhood Hous. Serv. of N.Y.C.

    1 N.Y.3d 280 (N.Y. 2003)   Cited 1,768 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "an accident alone does not establish a Labor Law § 240 violation"

  3. Cahill v. Triborough

    4 N.Y.3d 35 (N.Y. 2004)   Cited 712 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the worker's actions constituted negligence and a jury could have found his negligence to be the sole cause of his injuries

  4. Madeline D'Anthony Enters., Inc. v. Sokolowsky

    101 A.D.3d 606 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 411 times

    2012-12-27 MADELINE D'ANTHONY ENTERPRISES, INC., Plaintiff, ZCAM LLC, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Robert (Robbie) SOKOLOWSKY, et al., Defendants–Respondents. Kossoff & Unger, New York (Joseph Goldsmith of counsel), for appellant. Borah Goldstein Altschuler Nahins & Goidel PC, New York (Paul N. Gruber of counsel), for respondents. ANDRIAS Kossoff & Unger, New York (Joseph Goldsmith of counsel), for appellant. Borah Goldstein Altschuler Nahins & Goidel PC, New York (Paul N. Gruber of counsel), for respondents

  5. Kershaw v. Hosp. for Special Surgery

    114 A.D.3d 75 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 351 times
    In Kershaw, defendants argue that the First Department court specifically and unambiguously rebuked the idea of a cross-motion exception to the rule in Brill v City of New York (2 N.Y.3d 648 [2004]).

  6. Perez v. Folio House, Inc.

    123 A.D.3d 519 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)   Cited 94 times
    Holding that failure to address a claim indicates an intent to abandon it as a basis for liability

  7. Rodriguez v. Dormitory Auth. of N.Y.

    104 A.D.3d 529 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 84 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding "[p]laintiff abandoned the Labor Law § 241 claims that are predicated on violations of other Industrial Code provisions and OSHA regulations cited in his bill of particulars, since he failed to address them in his motion papers or on appeal"

  8. Gary v. Flair Beverage Corp.

    60 A.D.3d 413 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)   Cited 65 times
    Holding that the indemnified party "is also entitled to . . . costs pursuant to the broad language of the indemnification clause" which did not explicitly mention costs

  9. Calcano v. Rodriguez

    91 A.D.3d 468 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 50 times
    In Calcano v Rodriguez (91 AD3d 468, 468 [1st Dept 2012]), this Court held, "The plaintiff in a negligence action cannot obtain summary judgment as to liability if triable issues remain as to the plaintiff's own negligence and share of culpability for the accident" (citing Thoma, 82 NY2d at 737).

  10. Dickerson v. Health Management Corp. of America

    21 A.D.3d 326 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 53 times

    August 25, 2005. Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Nelson S. Roman, J.), entered November 4, 2004, which denied defendant's 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 defendant dismissing the complaint. Before: Friedman, J.P., Nardelli, Williams, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ. Defendant is a medical management company that oversees administrative, personnel and other