§Why CasetextPricing

Robert Gerrish, Respondent,v.56 Leonard LLC, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

Brief

18 Cited authorities

  1. Murray v. City of New York

    43 N.Y.2d 400 (N.Y. 1977)   Cited 476 times
    Holding that workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy as a matter of substantive law, and hence, whenever it appears from the plaintiff's pleadings, bill of particulars, or the facts that the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant, the obligation of alleging and proving noncoverage or applicability of workers' compensation benefits falls on the plaintiff; the court continued, stating that waiver may be accomplished by ignoring the issue to the point of final disposition

  2. Martinez v. City of New York

    93 N.Y.2d 322 (N.Y. 1999)   Cited 230 times
    Holding that asbestos inspector's work was “investigatory” in nature and not related to the later phase of construction and, therefore, not within the ambit of section 240

  3. Lewis v. Metropolitan Transp

    99 A.D.2d 246 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)   Cited 222 times
    In Lewis, the plaintiff fell on the platform of the Long Island Railroad ("LIRR") which is outside the City of New York and not part of New York City Transit Authority or the Staten Island Railway.

  4. Talansky v. Schulman

    2 A.D.3d 355 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)   Cited 94 times
    Finding fact issue where "totality of the evidence at least suggest[ed] that defendant was acting as plaintiffs attorney"

  5. Shields v. General Electric Company

    3 A.D.3d 715 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)   Cited 59 times

    94212. Decided and Entered: January 15, 2004. Cross appeals from an order of the Supreme Court (Teresi, J.), entered January 13, 2002 in Albany County, which, inter alia, partially granted defendant General Electric Company's motion and third-party defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Goldberg Segalla L.L.P., Albany (William J. Gregan of counsel), for defendant and third-party plaintiff-appellant-respondent. Conway Kirby L.L.P., Niskayuna (Andrew W. Kirby of counsel)

  6. Seda v. New York City Housing Authority

    181 A.D.2d 469 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)   Cited 60 times
    Holding that the plaintiff was not prejudiced by the delay where there had been "a dearth of discovery" in the 3 years preceding the motion for leave to amend

  7. Diarrassouba v. Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y. Inc.

    123 A.D.3d 525 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)   Cited 23 times

    2014-12-11 Salim DIARRASSOUBA, etc., et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. OF NEW YORK INC., Defendant, Harrjoy Realty Inc., Defendant–Respondent. Ryanne Konan Law Office and Legal Services, Wappingers Falls (Ryanne G. Konan of counsel), for appellants. Ahmuty Demers & McManus, Albertson (Glenn A. Kaminska of counsel), for respondent. SWEENY Ryanne Konan Law Office and Legal Services, Wappingers Falls (Ryanne G. Konan of counsel), for appellants. Ahmuty Demers & McManus, Albertson

  8. Lucas v. KD Development Constuction Corp.

    300 A.D.2d 634 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)   Cited 30 times

    2001-05587 Argued October 24, 2002. December 30, 2002. In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants KD International Development Corp. and Sanford Tower Associates appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated March 13, 2001, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them. Ahmuty, Demers McManus, Albertson, N.Y. (Frederick

  9. McGuinness v. Hertz Corporation

    15 A.D.3d 160 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 25 times
    Holding that this regulation was applicable because the work at issue "was performed 'on or in close proximity to a street'"

  10. D'Alto v. 22-24 129th Street, LLC

    76 A.D.3d 503 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)   Cited 17 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 2009-05265. August 3, 2010. In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Pacific Lawn Sprinklers, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Agate, J.), entered May 4, 2009, as denied those branches of its motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) insofar as asserted against it and the cross claim for contractual indemnification

  11. Section 600.10 - Format and content of records, appendices and briefs

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 600.10   Cited 11 times

    (a) Form and size. (1) Generally; paper and page size. Records, appendices and briefs shall be reproduced by any method that produces a permanent, legible, black on white copy and shall be on a good grade of white, opaque, unglazed recycled paper that satisfies the requirements of subdivision (e) of this section. Paper shall measure vertically 11 inches on the bound edge and horizontally 81/2 inches. The clerk may refuse to accept for filing a paper which is not legible or otherwise does not comply