§Why CasetextPricing

Kimso Apartments, LLC,, et al., Respondents,v.Mahesh Gandhi, Appellant, Arlington Filler, et al., Respondents.

Brief

21 Cited authorities

  1. Loomis v. Corinno Corp.

    54 N.Y.2d 18 (N.Y. 1981)   Cited 493 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Loomis v. Civetta Corinno Constr. Corp. (54 N.Y.2d 18, 23, rearg denied 55 N.Y.2d 801), the Court of Appeals held "[p]rejudice, of course, is not found in the mere exposure of the defendant to greater [financial] liability.

  2. 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

  3. Matter of Union Indem Ins Co.

    89 N.Y.2d 94 (N.Y. 1996)   Cited 137 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Characterizing the duty of utmost good faith as “the core duty accompanying reinsurance contracts”

  4. Zegarowicz v. Ripatti

    77 A.D.3d 650 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)   Cited 57 times

    Nos. 2008-07609, 2008-09185. October 5, 2010. Motion by the defendant HVT, Inc., for leave to reargue appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered July 3, 2008, and a judgment of the same court dated August 27, 2008, which were determined by decision and order of this Court dated November 4, 2009. Laub Delaney LLP (Pollack, Pollack, Isaac De Cicco, New York, N.Y. [Brian J. Isaac and Catherine A. Sheridan], of counsel), for appellant. Rende, Ryan Downes, LLP, White Plains

  5. People v. Brown

    98 N.Y.2d 226 (N.Y. 2002)   Cited 71 times
    In People v. Burgos-Santos (98 NY2d 226, 235), we held that the People could not use an alibi notice to cross-examine the defendant when the defense had withdrawn the notice before trial.

  6. Figueiredo v. Fran-Ju, Inc.

    39 A.D.3d 363 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)   Cited 49 times
    Denying general contractor leave to assert indemnification and contribution claims against owner after showing of general contractor's liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240

  7. Caceras v. Zorbas

    74 N.Y.2d 884 (N.Y. 1989)   Cited 63 times

    Decided October 26, 1989 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Diane Lebedeff, J. Stanley A. Landers for appellant. Alice Spitz for respondent. MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. Plaintiff was injured in the course of his employment and instituted this action against defendant, who was both the owner of the building where the accident happened and the president and sole stockholder of plaintiff's corporate

  8. Thailer v. Larocca

    174 A.D.2d 731 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)   Cited 50 times
    Finding no error where court sua sponte raised defense not pleaded by the defendant because the plaintiff had already addressed the issue on the merits and failed to raise any claim of prejudice; thus, the plaintiff "cannot claim surprise" that the defense would be relied on

  9. Falkowski v. 81 and 3 of Watertown, Inc.

    288 A.D.2d 890 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)   Cited 28 times

    (1339) CA 01-01281. November 9, 2001. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Cosgrove, J. — Summary Judgment.) PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., WISNER, HURLBUTT, GORSKI AND LAWTON, JJ. Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied that part of the motion of third-party defendant Kulback's Associates, Inc. (Kulback's) seeking summary judgment dismissing the cause of action in the amended third-party complaint for contractual indemnification from Kulback's and

  10. Cave v. Kollar

    2 A.D.3d 386 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)   Cited 25 times

    2003-00163. December 1, 2003. In an action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), entered December 2, 2002, which granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, denied their cross motion for summary judgment, and granted the plaintiff specific performance of the contract at a purchase price of $270,000. John J. Gochman, Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y., for appellants. Before: DANIEL