 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Harris v. State of New York, 2005-04998, (Claim No. 105724),
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT, January 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where it was clear that the claimant's conviction was vacated on the basis of newly discovered evidence, claimant's claim to recover damages pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 8-b was not "jurisdictionally defective" for failure to explicitly identify CPL 440.10(1)(g), and the claimant's request to amend the claim should have been granted.
|
|||||
| Hernandez v. Harrison Cent. School Dist., 2006-03795, (Index No. 15892/05),
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT, January 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In personal injury action against school district, trial court improvidently exercised discretion in granting claimant's motion for leave to renew his prior motion for leave to amend notice of claim because relevant material offered in support of motion did not constitute new facts not offered on prior motion within CPLR 2221(e)(2)'s meaning.
|
|||||
| Kaufman v. Bauer, 9126N, Index 570057/04,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, January 16, 2007, Decided , January 16, 2007, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an expert's affirmation sufficiently established a meritorious cause of action, because the patient sufficiently demonstrated law office failure to warrant an excuse of delay, and because there was no evidence of an intent to abandon the action, the civil court properly restored the case to the trial calendar under 22 NYCRR § 208.14(c).
|
|||||
| Keese v. Imperial Gardens Assoc., LLC, 2005-08242, (Index No. 7191/03),
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT, January 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a snow removal contractor placed snow on a sidewalk contrary to its standard operating procedure, and because the owner and its managing agent failed to establish that they did not have actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition, they were not entitled to summary judgment in a pedestrian's slip-and-fall action.
|
|||||
| Kellman v. State of New York, 2005-04999, (Claim No. 106578),
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT, January 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because State raised argument based on CPLR 6212(c) as to its liability for negligent misfiling of signed order of attachment necessary to attach real property belonging to claimants' judgment debtors on appeal instead of first raising it before court of claims in opposition to claimants' summary judgment motion, issue was not preserved for appeal.
|
|||||
| Launders v. Steinberg, 8273, Index 17356/88,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, January 16, 2007, Decided , January 16, 2007, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A compensatory and punitive damage award against a child's father after the father struck the child and then left her without medical attention and went out to dinner as she lay on a bathroom floor over the next eight to ten hours was affirmed. A $ 5 million award was just and fair compensation for the "tormented" hours preceding the child's death.
|
|||||
| Ledgin v. Ledgin, 2006-03105, (Index No. 203200/04),
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT, January 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Husband/father was not entitled to a hearing on the issue of whether his child support and maintenance arrears should have been reduced based on wife/mother's alleged interference with his visitation rights because, under Domestic Relations Law § 241, interference with visitation rights was not a ground for cancellation of child support arrears.
|
|||||
| Levinson & Santoro Elec. Corp. v. Morse Diesel Intl., 2005-09425, (Index No. 28662/02),
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT, January 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was affirmed in favor of contractor in breach of contract action against construction manager, as construction manager did not establish, prima facie, that it did not operate as general contractor for construction project, which would have rendered "pay-if-paid" provision of contract violative of public policy and unenforceable.
|
|||||
| Lim v. Tiburzi, 2006-00470, (Index No. 2492/04),
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT, January 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order granting summary judgment for defendants in action for personal injuries resulting from motor vehicle accident was reversed because medical evidence supplied by plaintiff was sufficient to overcome defendants' contention, in their summary judgment motion, that plaintiff did not sustain serious injury within Insurance Law § 5102(d)'s meaning.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
