Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
204 results
1.17s
Dolcimascolo v. 701 7th Prop. Owner, LLC
2024 NY Slip Op 30782(U) · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Mar 12, 2024
Defendants further argue that plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact regarding the scope of his employment, as he was clearly not authorized to be inside the corral and Carmody never stated that … Obviously, if the beam fell from such a height that plaintiff lifted his hands to protect himself, the beam constituted an elevation-related risk that qualifies for coverage under the scaffold law
Cited 0 timesUnpublished2024 NY Slip Op 33909(U) · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Nov 1, 2024
Plaintiff clearly testified that "I know Adam Victor was the employer and I would work per his direction" (id. at 239~241). … Under the NYCHRL (Administrative Code § 8-107 [7]) plaintiff "need not establish that the alleged retaliation ...
Cited 0 timesUnpublished2025 NY Slip Op 51416(U) · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Sep 4, 2025
"Where a qualified expert opines that a particular product is defective or dangerous, describes why it is dangerous, explains how it can be made safer, and concludes that it is feasible to do so, it is usually for the jury … Even if it is not entitled to dismissal based upon Alves' admissions, FCA argues that there are no genuine issues of fact since the owner's manual warnings clearly state the limitations of the ESC and TCS systems, including
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedHoepelman v. New York & Presbyt. Hosp.
2024 NY Slip Op 33573(U) · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Oct 1, 2024
A certificate of conformity is a written instrument, pursuant to which a person qualified by the laws of the state in which an affidavit or affirmation is executed and notarized, or by the laws of … Samson did not address the quality or propriety of the performance of the March 18, 2014 surgery itself, and the medical records clearly reflect that NYPH emergency physicians did, in 805314/2016
Cited 0 timesUnpublished2024 NY Slip Op 34555(U) · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Dec 18, 2024
Kiprovski clearly was indicated in light of that physician’s determination that spinal stenosis was the likely cause of the plaintiff’s spinal pain. Dr. … Although clearly opining that Lamont did not negligently delay in scheduling or performing the hip replacement surgery, Dr.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished2024 NY Slip Op 30808(U) · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Mar 13, 2024
I looked over at Tom, and he was clearly surprised. He then said ‘Oh, so you’re a Mexican?’ It was evident that Tom was very embarrassed by what he had said earlier. … v Daly, 243 F3d 687, 696 [2d Cir 2001] [“by hiring the employee, the employer itself has already expressed a belief that she is minimally qualified”]).
Cited 0 timesUnpublished2025 NY Slip Op 31535(U) · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Apr 29, 2025
, was qualified for the position, and suffered an adverse employment under circumstances that give rise to an inference of discrimination (Hamburg v New York Univ. … Unlike the State HRL where the employer must engage in interactions with the employee revealing at least some deliberation upon the viability of an accommodation, the City HRL clearly requires a
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedIsland Consol. v. Grassi & Co., Certified Public Accountants PC
2025 NY Slip Op 30094(U) · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Jan 7, 2025
itself out to be experienced in advising manufacturing and construction businesses, and possessing the skill, ability and experience of certified public accountants and auditors specially qualified … '"A plaintiff must establish, beyond the point of speculation and conjecture, a causal connection between its 451469/2023 ISLAND CONSOLIDATED ET AL vs.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedUtilisave, LLC v. Fox Horan & Camerini, LLP
2026 NY Slip Op 50056(U) · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Jan 20, 2026
Notably, Justice Freed held that the 2007 Disqualification Order did not immunize defendants from potential liability, and that Utilisave's claims in this action were direct rather than derivative in nature. … Here, the parties' submissions are voluminous and detailed, including affidavits, deposition testimony, and documentary exhibits that clearly frame the factual issues.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedFriends of Fort Greene Park v. New York City Parks & Recreation Dept.
2025 NY Slip Op 25151 · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Jul 1, 2025
As part of the Project, Parks engaged qualified arborists to conduct an on-site survey, conducted an updated tree inventory of the Park (see Tree Inventory [NYSCEF DOC 42] ), and evaluated the natural resources in the Park … The Court noted that such mitigation measures could "obviate the need for an EIS" if they "clearly negate the continued potentiality of the adverse effects of the proposed action" ( Id. At 754).
Cited 0 timesPublished2024 NY Slip Op 32425(U) · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Jul 12, 2024
It does not establish, however, whether the insurance purchased fulfils the requirements of the CMA. … Movants argue that plaintiff's injuries do not qualify as grave, entitling Centrifugal to the protection of the Workers' Compensation Law.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished2024 NY Slip Op 32349(U) · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Jul 10, 2024
“[T]he testator [or grantor] still enjoys the right to determine who is most suitable among those legally qualified to settle his [or her] affairs and execute his [or her] will, 150398/2015 HAMNER … constitutes a judicial nullification of the testator’s [or the grantor’s] choice [of a fiduciary] and may only be decreed when the [exclusive] grounds set forth in the relevant statutes have been clearly
Cited 0 timesUnpublished2024 NY Slip Op 32322(U) · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Jul 8, 2024
“[W]here [as here] a plaintiff’s qualified experts offer no novel test or technique but intend to testify about a novel theory of causation . . . it is proper to proceed directly to the foundational … Because “confidentiality is clearly the exception, not the rule” (Matter of Hofmann, 284 AD2d 92, 93–94 [1st Dept. 2001]), that Court has authorized sealing “only in strictly limited circumstances.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedU.S. Bank N.A. v. DLJ Mtge. Capital, Inc.
2024 NY Slip Op 34538(U) · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Dec 31, 2024
day period expires prior to the second anniversary of the Closing Date, remove such Mortgage Loan (a “Deleted Mortgage Loan”) from the Trust Fund and substitute in its place a Qualified … While the information is clearly 46 of 80 Page 46 of 80 [* 46] 650369/2013 U.S. BANK NATIONAL vs.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedDenson v. Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.
2025 NY Slip Op 30511(U) · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Feb 14, 2025
["Communications between a plaintiff's former employer and the plaintiffs prospective employer cannot support a cause of action to recover damages for defamation because New York recognizes a qualified … have been established at the time of the initial motion]).
Cited 0 timesUnpublished2024 NY Slip Op 33878(U) · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Oct 29, 2024
Dismissal is only warranted under this provision if "the documentary evidence submitted conclusively establishes a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law." Leon v. … Plaintiffs allege that Liz has received no compensation, but they fail to allege that any funds have been received by the Defendants that would qualify her for a 5% payment under the terms of the
Cited 0 timesUnpublished2024 NY Slip Op 34556(U) · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Dec 19, 2024
In most instances, the opinion of a qualified expert that the plaintiff's 805183/2019 KAPLOW, JAMES R vs. … “different” than those identified in the bills of particulars, as they fall within the ambit of negligent insertions and reinsertions of a catheter, and inappropriate postoperative care, which clearly
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedDivX, LLC v. Harman Intl. Indus., Inc.
2025 NY Slip Op 30465(U) · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Feb 3, 2025
challenged under the laws of the United Kingdom and under the laws of the United States and (b) the basis for such opinion, and (II) (a) a more limited opinion that it proposes that its expert is qualified … Harman contends that the interest clause of Section 5.5 clearly does not apply to reasonable royalty damages for alleged breaches of Section 3.7 and, as such, (i) interest is not due for devices
Cited 0 timesUnpublished2025 NY Slip Op 30790(U) · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Mar 11, 2025
They argue that these injuries do not qualify as a "serious injury" under any of the categories of the "no-fault" upon which plaintiff relies. … The reports cited by the moving defendants clearly conflict with the findings referenced by Dr. Merola and Dr. Dassa regarding the cause, permanency, and severity of the alleged injuries.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedCaiaccia v. New York City Dept. of Educ.
2025 NY Slip Op 32306(U) · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Jun 26, 2025
Instead, on August 29, 2022, Condon gave the job to his friend Blayne Gelbman, who was allegedly less qualified, and had less seniority than plaintiff (id., ¶ 55). … Plaintiff is clearly seeking compensatory damages in this matter (see complaint, ¶¶ 84-85, 96).
Cited 0 timesUnpublished
Ask Donna