§Why CasetextPricing

Tiffany Applewhite,, et al., Respondents,v.Accuhealth, Inc., et al., Defendants, City of New York, Appellant.

Brief

90 Cited authorities

  1. Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp

    68 N.Y.2d 320 (N.Y. 1986)   Cited 21,140 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Finding summary judgment appropriate by relying on a treating doctor's unrebutted deposition testimony

  2. Zuckerman v. City of N.Y.

    49 N.Y.2d 557 (N.Y. 1980)   Cited 24,769 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 . . ."

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

    64 N.Y.2d 851 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 18,058 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

  4. Ayotte v. Gervasio

    81 N.Y.2d 1062 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 1,640 times

    Decided June 15, 1993 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, Jan H. Plumadore, J. Saul Aronson, Albany, and Francis E. Lehner for appellants. DeLorenzo, Gordon, Pasquariello, Weiskopf Harding, P.C., Schenectady (Marshall P. Richer of counsel), for respondents. MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the negative. "[T]he proponent of a summary judgment motion must make

  5. Sillman v. Twentieth Century-Fox

    3 N.Y.2d 395 (N.Y. 1957)   Cited 5,982 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of the existence of any assignment, it shall have the right to withhold payments until the assignment is cancelled or withdrawn"

  6. JMD Holding Corp. v. Congress Financial Corp.

    4 N.Y.3d 373 (N.Y. 2005)   Cited 709 times
    Finding that plaintiff was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law where it failed to present evidence that liquidated damages were grossly disproportionate or that actual damages were capable of precise estimation at the time of the agreement's execution.

  7. Misicki v. Caradonna

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 3764 (N.Y. 2009)   Cited 594 times
    Holding that 12 N.Y.C.R.R. § 23-9.2 imposes a nondelegable duty to make "necessary repairs or replacement" upon discovery of any unsafe condition

  8. McLean v. City of New York

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 2449 (N.Y. 2009)   Cited 553 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing shortcomings in conduct of municipal employees that could have prevented harm incurred by plaintiffs, but noting that "this is not the test" for municipal liability

  9. Sommer v. Federal Signal Corp.

    79 N.Y.2d 540 (N.Y. 1992)   Cited 923 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in New York, "a party may not insulate itself from damages caused by grossly negligent conduct" through an exculpatory clause

  10. Valdez v. City of New York

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 7252 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 464 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Discussing the "fundamental obligation of a plaintiff pursuing a negligence cause of action to prove that the putative defendant owed a duty of care"