49 Cited authorities

Zuckerman v. City of N.Y.
49 N.Y.2d 557 (N.Y. 1980) Cited 24,802 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 . . ."
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
Gaddy v. Eyler
79 N.Y.2d 955 (N.Y. 1992) Cited 3,972 times
Holding that a chronic sprain was insufficient to avoid summary judgment where the doctor found that the injury resulted in only a mild limitation
Perl v. Meher
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 8452 (N.Y. 2011) Cited 1,143 times
Holding evidence established genuine issue of material fact as to whether physician's specific, numerical range of motion measurements of cervical and lumbar spines, made several years after automobile accident, demonstrated plaintiff suffered from a serious injury precluding summary judgment where initial examination of the plaintiff shortly after the accident showed difficulty moving and diminished strength in cervical and lumbar spines
Sillman v. Twentieth Century-Fox
3 N.Y.2d 395 (N.Y. 1957) Cited 5,992 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of the existence of any assignment, it shall have the right to withhold payments until the assignment is cancelled or withdrawn"
Stephenson v. Mammography
39 A.D.3d 303 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007) Cited 683 times
No. 486. April 12, 2007. Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered May 5, 2006, which granted the motion by defendants Park Avenue and Vaynshelbaum for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied and the complaint reinstated against those defendants. Sullivan Papain Block McGrath Cannavo, New York (Brian J. Shoot of counsel), for appellants. Garson Gerspach DeCorato Cohen, LLP, New York (Joshua
Ruiz v. Griffin
71 A.D.3d 1112 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010) Cited 388 times
Nos. 2009-02296, 2010-01026. March 30, 2010. In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death, etc., the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his notice of appeal and brief, from so much of (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), dated January 8, 2009, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Old Navy, Inc., which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and denied that branch of his cross motion which was for
Lopez v. Senatore
65 N.Y.2d 1017 (N.Y. 1985) Cited 753 times
Holding that a physician's affirmation that a 10% limitation in neck movement was significant precluded summary judgment for defendants
Rodriguez v. Goldstein
182 A.D.2d 396 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992) Cited 397 times
April 2, 1992 Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.). In this negligence action arising out of a two-car collision, plaintiff, a passenger in one of the vehicles, seeks to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained therein. Following joinder of issue, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to set forth a prima facie case of "serious injury" as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d). In support of the motion, defendants relied on the pleadings and
Glick Dolleck v. Tri-Pac Export Corp.
22 N.Y.2d 439 (N.Y. 1968) Cited 550 times
Holding that "[t]he court may not weigh the credibility of the affiants on a motion for summary judgment unless it clearly appears that the issues are not genuine, but feigned"

Marta Alvarez, Appellant,v.NYLL Management Ltd., et al., Respondents.

49 Cited authorities

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 . . ."

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

Holding that a chronic sprain was insufficient to avoid summary judgment where the doctor found that the injury resulted in only a mild limitation

Holding that a physician's affirmation that a 10% limitation in neck movement was significant precluded summary judgment for defendants

Holding that "[t]he court may not weigh the credibility of the affiants on a motion for summary judgment unless it clearly appears that the issues are not genuine, but feigned"