 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Pickering v. Lehrer, McGovern, Bovis, Inc., 2004-08939,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT, January 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence could have supported rational factfinder in determining that concrete supplier and others were negligent and that those in charge of construction site were liable under N.Y. Lab. Law § 200 for creating and tolerating slippery condition that led to worker's slip and fall, so judgment under N.Y. C.P.L.R. 4402 was inappropriate.
|
|||||
| Ramirez v. Romualdo, 2005-03835,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT, January 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court properly granted that branch of defendant's motion pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L.R. 5015(a)(1) to vacate his default in appearing or answering the complaint. Plaintiff's process server failed to exercise due diligence in attempting to effectuate personal service pursuant to the "nail and mail" method provided in N.Y. C.P.L.R. 308(4).
|
|||||
| Re-Max Classic Realty, Inc. v. Berger, 2004-04499, 2005-00036,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT, January 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an action, inter alia, for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, the trial court properly granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. After defendants established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, plaintiff presented mere conclusions and unsubstantiated allegations.
|
|||||
| Romeo v. Ronald McDonald House, 2004-07615 (Index No. 32024/01),
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT, January 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a personal injury action, a charity established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that it did not create or have actual or constructive notice of an icy condition that allegedly caused the injured party to fall. In opposition, plaintiffs failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact.
|
|||||
| Romero v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 2004-09532 (Index No. 10958/01) (Index No. 5730/01) (Index No. 11727/01) (Index No. 9499/01) (Index No. 16110/02) (Index No. 12566/01),
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT, January 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a jury was entitled to resolve the issues about the nature and foreseeability of a medical emergency that resulted in a bus accident and the bus authorities' compliance with N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law art. 19-A in favor of the authorities, the passengers' N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 4404 motion to set aside the verdict should have been denied.
|
|||||
| Schlesinger v. Town of Ramapo, 4925/99,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, ROCKLAND COUNTY, January 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Interior inspection without taxpayer's consent was barred by U.S. Const. amend. IV's preclusion against unreasonable administrative searches without warrant; town did not show how inspection would reflect interior when assessment was made years earlier and N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22, § 202.59(e), did not authorize interior inspection.
|
|||||
| Swift v. New York Med. Coll, 2005-02972,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT, January 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a professor's demand for payment of clinical funding was timely, and because he stated a claim that the college violated its intellectual property policy, the trial court erred in dismissing the professor's causes of action under N.Y. C.P.L.R. §§ 3213(1), 3211(a)(5), (a)(7), and in denying his motion to amend.
|
|||||
| Unclaimed Prop. Recovery Serv., Inc. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 2004-10231 (Index No. 1590/01),
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT, January 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Unger v. Leviton, 2003-09547 (Index No. 8213/02),
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT, January 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of defendant's motion for leave to amend his answer was affirmed; defendant's proposed amendment to his answer, to assert an affirmative defense based upon illegality and unclean hands, was patently insufficient and devoid of merit.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
