Robillard v. Robbins, 585 N.E.2d 375 (N.Y. 1991). · Go Syfert
Search
Robillard v. Robbins, 585 N.E.2d 375 (N.Y. 1991). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
28 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Matter of Jamila-Kai M.R. v. Lonnie L.M. (nyappdiv, 2025-04-15)
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1992 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Jamila-Kai M.R. v. Lonnie L.M. (3×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2025 · confidence medium
Moreover, the father's arguments surrounding the enforcement of child support and representation during a child support proceeding were not raised before Family Court and thus, have not been preserved for appellate review ( see Robillard v Robbins , 78 NY2d 1105, 1106 [1991]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Peguero v. 601 Realty Corp. (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
Thus, this is not a case in which defense counsel merely voiced “general objections” (Robillard v Robbins, 78 NY2d 1105, 1106 [1991]) to the submission of the claim against Farkas to the jury.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Schultz v. Dew (2×)
S.D. · 1997 · confidence medium
Pistner Bros., Inc. v. Agheli, 359 Pa.Super. 177 , 518 A.2d 838, 840-41 (1986) (other citations omitted); Van Gorder v. Masterplanned, Inc., 78 N.Y.2d 1106 , 578 N.Y.S.2d 126 , 585 N.E.2d 375, 376 (1991) (if claimant acknowledges superior title in record owner during statutory ten-year period, it negates an essential element of an adverse possession claim, i.e., possession with a claim of right throughout the time period); Manhattan Sch. of Music v. Solow, 175 A.D.2d 106 , 571 N.Y.S.2d 958, 960 (N.Y.App.Div.1991) (“An offer made by one in possession without title to purchase from the record …
discussed Cited "see" Dufel v. Green
NY · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
Whether a limitation of use or function is "significant” or "consequential” (i.e., important; see, Counter-mine v Galka, 189 AD2d 1043, 1045 ) relates to medical significance and involves a comparative determination of the degree or qualitative nature of an injury based on the normal function, purpose and use of the body part (see, Robillard v Robbins, 168 AD2d 803 , affd 78 NY2d 1105 ).
discussed Cited "see" Countermine v. Galka
N.Y. App. Div. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
Finally, we conclude that the jury’s assessment of damages did not "deviate[ ] materially from what would be reasonable compensation” (CPLR 5501 [c]; see, Robillard v Robbins, 168 AD2d 803, 805 , affd 78 NY2d 1105 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Margaret M. Robillard
v.
Dean Robbins, III
New York Court of Appeals.
Nov 25, 1991.
585 N.E.2d 375
1991 N.Y. LEXIS 4927
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, James L. Pemberton for appellants., Harold D. Gordon for respondent.
Cited by 261 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

While defendants urge that it was error to allow plaintiffs medical expert to express opinions on the very questions to be resolved by the jury, their general objections were insufficient to preserve a law issue for our review (see, Matter of Gonzalez v State Liq. Auth., 30 NY2d 108, 112-113; Wightman v Campbell, 217 NY 479, 482-483).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.