Holtz v. Rockefeller Co., Inc.

Holding that a court "may in its discretion opt to conduct an assiduous review of the record even where one of the parties has failed to file" the Southern District of New York equivalent of a Rule 56 statement

Cohen v. Hallmark Cards

Holding that the standard of review in assessing a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is whether there is "simply no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational [people] to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial"

Mirand v. City of New York

Examining a jury verdict to assess whether it was irrational

Szczerbiak v. Pilat

Finding that the police officer's striking a pedestrian, while glancing down from the road momentarily to turn on his emergency lights, was "a momentary judgment lapse," which did not alone rise to the level of recklessness

Amatulli v. Delhi Constr Corp.

Holding 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

Tagle v. Jakob

In Tagle, the plaintiff was injured when he touched an uninsulated electric wire while climbing a tree on the defendant's property.

Pulka v. Edelman

Holding 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.

Holding 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

Thing v. La Chusa

Holding that "a plaintiff may recover damages for emotional distress caused by observing the negligently inflicted injury of a third person if, but only if, said plaintiff: is closely related to the injury victim; is present at the scene of the injury producing event at the time it occurs and is then aware that it is causing injury to the victim; and as a result suffers serious emotional distress"

Burgos v. Aqueduct Realty Corp.

In Burgos, in contrast, the court found that summary judgment was not appropriate despite the intruder requirement because "the plaintiff in her affidavit stated that she did not recognize her assailants, although she lived in a relatively small building and was familiar with all of the building's tenants and their families."

Section 500.1 - General requirements