 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Evans v. State of New York, 100170,
COURT OF CLAIMS OF NEW YORK, January 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Fernandez v. Elemam, 2005-00312,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT, January 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an action for medical malpractice and negligence, a physician established his prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the malpractice cause of action by showing that he did not deviate from the requisite standard of care; the patient failed to submit any opposition papers. Summary judgment was also proper on the negligence claim.
|
|||||
| Ferrara v. N.Y. & Atl. Ry. Co., 2004-07272, (Index No. 21468/99),
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT, January 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal for failure to prosecute under N.Y. C.P.L.R. 3216 was inappropriate where delays on plaintiffs' part were largely attributable to late filing of discovery requests by defendants.
|
|||||
| Fitzpatrick v. State of New York, 2004-06704 (Claim No. 101367),
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT, January 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court reversed summary judgment dismissal of worker's N.Y. Lab. Law § 240(1) claim; even if activity of changing photo cells could properly be considered routine maintenance, that activity was non-separable and contemporaneous to the worker's primary duty of restoring lighting to a parking lot, which was clearly protected activity.
|
|||||
| Fleischer v. Morreale, HUC 3531-03,
DISTRICT COURT OF NEW YORK, SUFFOLK COUNTY, January 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Buyers' N.Y. Real Prop. Law § 465(2) claim was successful for the roof leaks and the basement flooding. They were pre-sale conditions of which the sellers were aware, the misrepresentations were knowingly false, and damages resulted. Also, the home was inspected and there were no indications that the representations were false.
|
|||||
| Gagliardotto v. Huntington Hosp., 2004-05599,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT, January 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Gjokaj v. Fox, 2004-09353, (Index No. 6126/02),
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT, January 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence regarding long-time location of stone wall, as well as statements by previous owners regarding claim to disputed property, raised questions of fact requiring trial of adverse possession claim; N.Y. C.P.L.R. 3025 motion to amend complaint to add prescriptive easement claim should have been granted, as there was no danger of prejudice.
|
|||||
| Hageman v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 2004-06058,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT, January 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where personal injury defendant was able to show that its discovery noncompliance had been caused by law office failure and that it had a meritorious defense, relief from default was properly granted and the defendant's answer was reinstated.
|
|||||
| Hes v. New York City Tr. Auth., 2005-03333, (Index No. 25660/99),
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT, January 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
