Amatulli v. Delhi Constr Corp.
77 N.Y.2d 525 (N.Y. 1991) Cited 729 timesHolding 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
Sanchez v. State of New York
99 N.Y.2d 247 (N.Y. 2002) Cited 483 timesHolding 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"
Liriano v. Hobart Corp.
92 N.Y.2d 232 (N.Y. 1998) Cited 477 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that no duty to warn exists when hazards are known through "general knowledge"
Pulka v. Edelman
40 N.Y.2d 781 (N.Y. 1976) Cited 925 timesHolding that parking garage owner had no special relationship to pedestrians passing by on sidewalk in front of garage exit and that garage had no duty to protect off-premise pedestrians from negligent conduct of patrons
Hamilton v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.
96 N.Y.2d 222 (N.Y. 2001) Cited 396 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that handgun manufacturers do not owe a duty of reasonable care in the marketing and distribution of their handguns to persons injured or killed through the use of illegally obtained handguns, but leaving open the question of retailers' liability
Joblon v. Solow
91 N.Y.2d 457 (N.Y. 1998) Cited 383 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that "routine maintenance" and "decorative modifications," such as the removal and replacement of a burnt-out lightbulb on an illuminated sign or "the minimal cleaning of windows," fall outside the reach of Section 240
D'Amico v. Christie
71 N.Y.2d 76 (N.Y. 1987) Cited 467 timesHolding that application of dram shop law "requires a commercial sale of alcohol"
Weininger v. Hagedorn Company
91 N.Y.2d 958 (N.Y. 1998) Cited 265 timesFinding that worker running computer and telephone cables through ceiling to new office space was engaged in altering a structure
Robinson v. Reed-Prentice
49 N.Y.2d 471 (N.Y. 1980) Cited 422 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that the defendant was not strictly liable for defective design where evidence established that when the defendant sold the molding machine, the machine was not defective, and had the machine been left intact, the machine's safety gate and connecting interlocks would have rendered the predicate accident an impossibility
Codling v. Paglia
32 N.Y.2d 330 (N.Y. 1973) Cited 443 timesHolding manufacturer liable for defective product "provided that" plaintiff could not by exercise of reasonable care have discovered the defect and perceived its danger or otherwise averted his injury