green
Positive treatment
5.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Kokoska v. Joe Tahan's Furniture Liquidation Ctrs., Inc.
"An 'employee employed in a bona fide administrative capacity' is defined as an employee earning not less than [a certain level][ [FN3] ] per week, '[w]hose primary duty is the performance of office or non-manual work directly related to the management or general business operations of the employer or the employer's customers,' and who exercises discretion and independent judgment in performing his or her duties" ( Lichtman v Martin's News Shops Mgt., Inc. , 81 AD3d 696, 698 [2d Dept 2011], quoting 29 CFR 541.200 [a] [2]; see Matter of Conners [Commissioner of Labor] , 9 AD3d 703 , 705 [3d Dep…
discussed
Cited "see"
McLoughlin v. City of Syracuse
While the violation of internal policies or regulations is not dispositive, it is "an important . . . factor in determining whether [Breen] . . . acted recklessly" ( Saarinen v Kerr , 84 NY2d 494 , 503 n 3 [1994]; see Allen v Town of Amherst , 294 AD2d 828, 829 [4th Dept 2002], lv denied 3 NY3d 609 [2004]; cf. Szczerbiak v Pilat , 90 NY2d 553, 557 [1997]; Green v Zarella , 153 AD3d 1162, 1163 [1st Dept 2017]).
discussed
Cited "see"
PUTRELO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. TOWN OF MARCY
In addition, with respect to the cross motions by defendant and third- party defendant, “[a]lthough successive summary judgment motions generally are disfavored absent newly discovered evidence or other sufficient cause . . . , neither Supreme Court nor this Court is precluded from addressing the merits of such a motion” (Giardina v Lippes, 77 AD3d 1290, 1291 , lv denied 16 NY3d 702 ; see Sexstone v Amato, 8 AD3d 1116, 1116-1117 , lv denied 3 NY3d 609 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
Putrelo Construction Co. v. Town of Marcy
In addition, with respect to the cross motions by defendant and third-party defendant, “[although successive summary judgment motions generally are disfavored absent newly discovered evidence or other sufficient cause . . . , neither Supreme Court nor this Court is precluded from addressing the merits of such a motion” (Giardina v Lippes, 11 AD3d 1290, 1291 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 702 [2011]; see Sexstone v Amato, 8 AD3d 1116, 1116-1117 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 609 [2004]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Putrelo Construction Co. v. Town of Marcy
In addition, with respect to the cross motions by defendant and third-party defendant, “[although successive summary judgment motions generally are disfavored absent newly discovered evidence or other sufficient cause . . . , neither Supreme Court nor this Court is precluded from addressing the merits of such a motion” (Giardina v Lippes, 11 AD3d 1290, 1291 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 702 [2011]; see Sexstone v Amato, 8 AD3d 1116, 1116-1117 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 609 [2004]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
ECKEL
v.
FRANCIS
v.
FRANCIS
Published
Motion for leave to appeal denied.