19 Cited authorities

Zuckerman v. City of N.Y.
49 N.Y.2d 557 (N.Y. 1980) Cited 24,782 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 . . ."
Negri v. Stop and Shop, Inc.
65 N.Y.2d 625 (N.Y. 1985) Cited 678 times
Holding that circumstantial evidence that broken jars of baby food were on the floor for fifteen to twenty minutes tended to show that supermarket had constructive notice of the dangerous condition
Suffolk County Deptartment of Social Services v. James M.
83 N.Y.2d 178 (N.Y. 1994) Cited 376 times
In Matter of Suffolk County Dept. of Social Services v. James M., 83 N.Y.2d 178, 182 (1994), the Court of Appeals held that summary judgement is appropriate in Article 10 proceedings.
Cox v. Nunez
23 A.D.3d 427 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005) Cited 218 times
2004-06116. November 14, 2005. In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Lawrence Cox appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Burke, J.), dated April 5, 2004, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him. Brand Glick Brand, Garden City, N.Y. (Robert S. Mazzuchin of counsel), for appellant. Epstein, Grammatico, Frankini Marotta, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Diana T. Bishop of counsel), for defendant Ivelisse
Nevarez v. S.R.M
58 A.D.3d 295 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008) Cited 63 times
Denying summary judgment "because the record demonstrates questions of fact as to [defendant's] comparative negligence. . . . If plaintiff's vehicle had already started to enter the intersection when [defendant] approached it, defendant had a duty to use reasonable care to avoid the collision."
Tibbits v. Verizon
40 A.D.3d 1300 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007) Cited 63 times
No. 501663. May 17, 2007. Peters, J.P. Appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court (Teresi, J.), entered March 8, 2006 in Albany County, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and (2) from that part of an order of said court, entered June 21, 2006 in Albany County, which denied plaintiffs motion to renew. Richard A. Kohn, Albany, for appellant. Jones Day, New York City (Shari M. Goldsmith of counsel), for respondent. Before: Spain, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen
Garner v. Latimer
306 A.D.2d 209 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003) Cited 49 times
1222 June 26, 2003. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton Tingling, J.), entered on or about January 28, 2002, which denied plaintiff's motion to vacate an underlying order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered on or about October 25, 2000, which denied plaintiff's motion to restore the action to the pre-note of issue calendar, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, and the matter restored to the pre-note of issue calendar. Brian
Freese v. Schwartz
203 A.D.2d 513 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994) Cited 50 times
April 25, 1994 Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Becker, J.). Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting therefrom the provision granting the defendant's cross motion, and substituting therefor a provision denying the cross motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to the plaintiffs. The plaintiff Frederick M. Freese consulted an attorney regarding judgments entered against him and his wife. Freese also sought advice as to how to acquire real property
Cooley v. Urban
1 A.D.3d 900 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003) Cited 23 times
CA 03-00513 November 21, 2003. Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Mahoney, J.), entered July 31, 2002, which denied the motion of defendant Albert J. Urban seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint against him. HAGELIN BISCHOF, LLC, BUFFALO (ANTHONY J. TANTILLO OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. LAW OFFICE OF JOHN J. FROMEN, BUFFALO (EDWARD J. MARKARIAN OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT. PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., GREEN, SCUDDER, GORSKI, AND HAYES, JJ. MEMORANDUM
Wallace v. Kuhn
23 A.D.3d 1042 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005) Cited 20 times
CA 05-00431. November 10, 2005. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John M. Curran, J.), entered August 25, 2004. The order denied the motion of defendant Rodney B. Swain for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against him. SUGARMAN LAW FIRM, LLP, BUFFALO (JAMES E. HANLON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. KENNEY, SHELTON, LIPTAK NOWAK, L.L.P., BUFFALO (CHRISTOPHER A. JOHNSON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. Present: Green, J.P., Gorski, Smith, Lawton and Hayes

Mary T. Heltz, Appellant,v.Bruce S. Barratt et al., Respondents.

19 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 . . ."

Holding that circumstantial evidence that broken jars of baby food were on the floor for fifteen to twenty minutes tended to show that supermarket had constructive notice of the dangerous condition

In Matter of Suffolk County Dept. of Social Services v. James M., 83 N.Y.2d 178, 182 (1994), the Court of Appeals held that summary judgement is appropriate in Article 10 proceedings.

Denying summary judgment "because the record demonstrates questions of fact as to [defendant's] comparative negligence. . . . If plaintiff's vehicle had already started to enter the intersection when [defendant] approached it, defendant had a duty to use reasonable care to avoid the collision."