49 Cited authorities

  1. Zuckerman v. City of N.Y

    49 N.Y.2d 557 (N.Y. 1980)   Cited 20,756 times   1 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 . . ."
  2. Winegrad v. N.Y. Univ. Medical Center

    64 N.Y.2d 851 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 13,228 times   1 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
  3. Gaddy v. Eyler

    79 N.Y.2d 955 (N.Y. 1992)   Cited 4,092 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
  4. Perl v. Meher

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 8452 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 854 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
  5. Sillman v. Twentieth Century-Fox

    3 N.Y.2d 395 (N.Y. 1957)   Cited 4,925 times
    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of the existence of any assignment, it shall have the right to withhold payments until the assignment is cancelled or withdrawn"
  6. Stephenson v. Mammography

    39 A.D.3d 303 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)   Cited 520 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

  7. Lopez v. Senatore

    65 N.Y.2d 1017 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 673 times
    Holding that a physician's affirmation that a 10% limitation in neck movement was significant precluded summary judgment for defendants
  8. Rodriguez v. Goldstein

    182 A.D.2d 396 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)   Cited 396 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

  9. Ruiz v. Griffin

    71 A.D.3d 1112 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)   Cited 234 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

  10. Toussaint v. Claudio

    23 A.D.3d 268 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 160 times

    7086. November 17, 2005. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered June 9, 2004, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for failure to establish serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously modified, on the law, to deny the motion insofar as plaintiff's claim of serious injury is predicated upon allegations that he sustained a nonpermanent injury in the subject automobile accident which incapacitated