green
Positive treatment
2.1 score
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Judge Rotenberg Educational Center Inc. v. Blass
(3×)
See, e.g., Koenigsmark v. State of New York, 55 N.Y.2d 928 , 449 N.Y.S.2d 191 , 434 N.E.2d 260 (1982) (attempted suicide by patient after escape); Centeno v. City of New York, 40 N.Y.2d 932 , 389 N.Y.S.2d 837 , 358 N.E.2d 520 (1976) (suicide by patient after release); Cameron v. State of New York, 37 A.D.2d 46 , 322 N.Y.S.2d 562 (4th Dep’t 1971) (assault on others after release); Hirsch v. State of New York, 8 N.Y.2d 125 , 202 N.Y.S.2d 296 , 168 N.E.2d 372 (1960) (suicide by patient in hospital); Scolavino v. State of New York, 297 N.Y. 460 , 74 N.E.2d 174 (1947) (assault on another patient)…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Schrempf v. State
In those cases, the State is held to the same duty of care as private individuals and institutions engaging in the same activity (Miller v State of New York, supra, at p 511; Bernardine v City of New York, 294 NY 361 ; Court of Claims Act § 8; see also, Koenigsmark v State of New York, 55 NY2d 928; Cohen v State of New York, 51 AD2d 494, affd 41 NY2d 1086 ; St.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jeffrey Koenigsmark, Appellant,
v.
State of New York, Respondent
v.
State of New York, Respondent
New York Court of Appeals.
Feb 11, 1982.
434 N.E.2d 260
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, John F. O’Mara for appellant., Robert Abrams, Attorney-General {Lew A. Millenbach and Shirley Adelson Siegel of counsel), for respondent.
Cited by 4 opinions | Published
OPINION OF THE COURT
Order affirmed, without costs, for the reasons stated in the memorandum of the Appellate Division (80 AD2d 707).
[*930] Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Meyer. Judge Fuchsberg concurs in the following memorandum: Since the very recent decision in Topel v Long Is. Jewish Med. Center (55 NY2d 682, 685 [Fuchsberg, J., dissenting]) would have required that this case be dismissed, not just on the facts as the Court of Claims and the Appellate Division did, but on the law as well, a fortiori, I too vote to affirm though on constraint of that case.