green
Positive treatment
18.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 2012 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2012
2019
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hormigas v. Village East Towers, Inc.
Even if Village East had not hired Command Security to secure the premises, Village East would not be liable for plaintiff's injuries, because there is no evidence it had control over Hernandez or that it could have prevented Hernandez's alleged misconduct ( see Martino v Stolzman , 18 NY3d 905, 908 [2012]; Pulka v Edelman , 40 NY2d 781, 785-786 [1976]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Guzman v. State of New York
As a landowner, the State has a duty to maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition (see Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233, 240-241 [1976]; Quintanilla v State of New York, 94 AD3d 846, 847 [2012]; Clairmont v State of New York, 277 AD2d 767, 768 [2000]; Bowers v State of New York, 241 AD2d 760, 760 [1997]). “[A] landowner’s duty to warn of a latent, dangerous condition on [its] property is a natural counterpart to [its] duty to maintain [its] property in a reasonably safe condition” (Martino v Stolzman, 18 NY3d 905, 908 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Fernandez v Rutma…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fernandez v. Rutman
Encompassed within this duty is the concomitant duty to warn those lawfully on the premises of potentially dangerous conditions that are not readily observable (see Martino v Stolzman, 18 NY3d 905, 908 [2012]; Galindo v Town of Clarkstown, 2 NY3d 633, 636 [2004]; Doyle v State of New York, 271 AD2d 394, 395-396 [2000]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Coolbaugh v. International Business Machines Corp.
The fact that WGI may have had prior notice of problems with the way cargo was loaded by Temple-Inland did not give rise to a duty to protect the plaintiff (see Martino v Stolzman, 18 NY3d 905, 908 [2012]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Coolbaugh v. International Business Machines Corp.
The fact that WGI may have had prior notice of problems with the way cargo was loaded by Temple-Inland did not give rise to a duty to protect the plaintiff (see Martino v Stolzman, 18 NY3d 905, 908 [2012]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Parker v. Dunn
In Martino v Stolzman ( 18 NY3d 905, 908 [2012] [citations omitted]), the Court of Appeals has recently reiterated its position regarding the liability of landowners: “It has long been the rule in New York that ‘[Band-owners in general have a duty to act in a reasonable manner to prevent harm to those on their property.’ ‘In particular, they have a duty to control the conduct of third persons on their premises when they have the opportunity to control such persons.’ Here, the Olivers were no longer in a position to control Stolzman when he entered his vehicle and drove away.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kudisch v. Grumpy Jack's, Inc.
In addition, the defendant had no duty to control the decedent’s conduct so as to prevent him from harm, since the injury occurred beyond the area where supervision and control could reasonably be exercised (see Martino v Stolzman, 18 NY3d 905, 908 [2012]; D’Amico v Christie, 71 NY2d at 87-88 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kudisch v. Grumpy Jack's, Inc.
In addition, the defendant had no duty to control the decedent’s conduct so as to prevent him from harm, since the injury occurred beyond the area where supervision and control could reasonably be exercised (see Martino v Stolzman, 18 NY3d 905, 908 [2012]; D’Amico v Christie, 71 NY2d at 87-88 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
Covelli v. Silver Fist, Ltd.
However, it is "uniformly acknowledged that liability may be imposed only for injuries that occurred on defendant's property, or in an area under defendant's control, where defendant had the opportunity to supervise the intoxicated guest" ( id. ; see Martino v Stolzman , 18 NY3d 905 , 908; Sheehy v Big Flats Community Day , 73 NY2d 629, 636 ; O'Gara v Alacci , 67 AD3d 54 , 57; Reuter v Flobo Enters. , 120 AD2d 722, 723 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
Parslow v. Leake
The fall left plaintiff paralyzed from the waist down. m “Landowners in general have a duty to act in a reasonable manner to prevent harm to those on their property” (D’Amico v Christie, 71 NY2d 76, 85 [1987]; see Martino v Stolzman, 18 NY3d 905, 908 [2012]).
cited
Cited "see"
PARSLOW, BRYAN v. LEAKE, STEVEN B.
III “Landowners in general have a duty to act in a reasonable manner to prevent harm to those on their property” (D’Amico v Christie, 71 NY2d 76, 85 ; see Martino v Stolzman, 18 NY3d 905, 908 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
Parslow v. Leake
The fall left plaintiff paralyzed from the waist down. m “Landowners in general have a duty to act in a reasonable manner to prevent harm to those on their property” (D’Amico v Christie, 71 NY2d 76, 85 [1987]; see Martino v Stolzman, 18 NY3d 905, 908 [2012]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Pellegrino v. Trapasso
(2×)
It has long been the rule in New York that “[l]andowners in general have a duty to act in a reasonable manner to prevent harm to those on their property” (D’Amico v Christie, 71 NY2d 76, 85 [1987]; see Martino v Stolzman, 18 NY3d 905, 908 [2012]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Pellegrino v. Trapasso
(2×)
It has long been the rule in New York that “[l]andowners in general have a duty to act in a reasonable manner to prevent harm to those on their property” (D’Amico v Christie, 71 NY2d 76, 85 [1987]; see Martino v Stolzman, 18 NY3d 905, 908 [2012]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hedges v. East River Plaza, LLC
Woolworth Co., 211 AD2d 591, 592 [1st Dept 1995]; Rivera v 21st Century Rest., 199 AD2d 14, 15 [1st Dept 1993]; Murphy v Turian House, 232 AD2d 535 [2d Dept 1996]; see Martino v Stolzman, 18 NY3d 905 , 908 [2012]; Di Ponzio v Riordan, 89 NY2d 578, 582-583 [1997]; D’Amico v Christie, 71 NY2d 76, 85 [1987]; Garrett v Twin Parks Northeast Site 2 Houses, 256 AD2d 224, 225-226 [1st Dept 1998].) A duty of supervision adequate to guard against reasonably foreseeable injury is particularly warranted when, as alleged here, the business invited unescorted minors into its premises.
discussed
Cited "see"
Sermos v. Gruppuso
Further, it must be established that a defendant landowner gave insufficient warning of any latent, dangerous condition on his or her property, since such warning “is a natural counterpart to his [or her] duty to maintain his [or her] property in a reasonably safe condition” (Galindo v Town of Clarkstown, 2 NY3d 633, 636 [2004]; see Martino v Stolzman, 18 NY3d 905 [2012]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
The Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation , Doris Kay Dummitt v. A.W. Chesterton , The Matter of Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation , Joann H. Suttner v. A.W. Chesterton Company
(2×)
Specifically, because the court told the jurors that Crane had a duty to warn based purely on the reasonable foreseeability of the hazardous combined use of its valves with third-party asbestos-based products, the court improperly suggested that the existence of a duty to warn turns on foreseeability alone, thereby running afoul of our clear precedent to the contrary (see Hamilton, 96 NY2d at 232 ; see also Martino v Stolzman, 18 NY3d 905, 908 [2012]; Pulka, 40 NY2d at 785 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of State of New York, Respondent,
v.
C.B., Appellant
v.
C.B., Appellant
Motion No: 2011-1283.
New York Court of Appeals.
Feb 14, 2012.
Published
On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved. Motion for leave to appeal denied. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.