Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Maurer v. Colton
We thus conclude that defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether plaintiff sustained serious injuries to her neck and back under the significant limitation of use and permanent consequential limitation of use categories ( see LaForte v Tiedemann , 41 AD3d 1191, 1192 [4th Dept 2007]; see generally Wojcik v Kent , 21 AD3d 1410, 1412 [4th Dept 2005]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Frontier Ins. Co. v. Merritt & McKenzie, Inc.
While the facts underlying the Shepherd theory certainly could have been pleaded with more specificity, "a[ny] variance between the pleadings and the proof may be disregarded unless it can be said to have misled an adversary and occasioned prejudice" ( Hummel v Vicaretti , 152 AD2d 779, 780 [1989] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted], lv dismissed 75 NY2d 809 [1990]; accord Anderson v Dainack , 39 AD3d 1065, 1068 [2007]; see Fried v Seippel , 80 NY2d 32, 42 [1992]; LaForte v Tiedemann , 41 AD3d 1191, 1192 [2007]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. J.R.C.
The Fourth Department has continued to cite Fleiss even after the Second Department eschewed the liberal approach in Wagman (see LaForte v Tiedemann, 41 AD3d 1191, 1192 [4th Dept 2007]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. J.R.C.
The Fourth Department has continued to cite Fleiss even after the Second Department eschewed the liberal approach in Wagman (see LaForte v Tiedemann, 41 AD3d 1191, 1192 [4th Dept 2007]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Damas v. Valdes
Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 559 [1980]; Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067 [1979]; Autiello v Cummins, 66 AD3d 1072, 1073 [2009]; McHugh v Marfoglia, 65 AD3d 828, 829 [2009]; LaForte v Tiedemann, 41 AD3d 1191, 1192 [2007]; Horton v Warden, 32 AD3d 570, 572 [2006]; Boorman v Bowhers, 27 AD3d 1058, 1059 [2006]; Hillman v Eick, 8 AD3d 989, 991 [2004]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tandoi v. Clarke
“As the proponent of the summary judgment motion, plaintiff bore the burden of establishing, as a matter of law, that she suffered a serious injury pursuant to [that statute] and that the injury was causally related to the accident” (Autiello v Cummins, 66 AD3d 1072, 1073 [2009] [citations omitted]; see McHugh v Marfoglia, 65 AD3d 828, 828-829 [2009]; LaForte v Tiedemann, 41 AD3d 1191, 1192 [2007]; Ellithorpe v Marion, 34 AD3d 1195, 1196 [2006]). “[I]n order to establish ... a significant limitation of use, the medical evidence submitted by plaintiff must contain objective, quantitative …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Elshaarawy v. U-Haul Co.
As the proponent of the summary judgment motion, the plaintiff had the burden of making a prima facie showing that he suffered a serious injury pursuant to Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and that his injury was causally related to the accident (see Autiello v Cummins, 66 AD3d 1072 [2009]; McHugh v Marfoglia, 65 AD3d 828, 829 [2009]; LaForte v Tiedemann, 41 AD3d 1191, 1192 [2007]; Ellithorpe v Marion, 34 AD3d 1195 [2006]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mchugh v. A.J. Marfoglia
Plaintiff met his burden with respect to those two categories by submitting objective evidence that he suffered a disc herniation at C6-C7 that required surgical intervention, and by submitting the affirmation of his treating neurosurgeon who concluded that, based upon his examination and treatment of plaintiff and his review of plaintiff’s medical records, plaintiffs injuries were significant, permanent, and causally related to the accident (see LaForte v Tiedemann, 41 AD3d 1191, 1192 [2007]; see generally Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345, 353 [2002]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Christopher v. Bom Dokko
The testimony of that pathologist would have been cumulative, inasmuch as that pathologist was in agreement with the pathology report concerning plaintiff’s biopsy that already was in evidence (see LaForte v Tiedemann, 41 AD3d 1191, 1192-1193 [2007]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Carpe Diem Development Group, LLC
v.
City of Buffalo, Appellant-Respondent
v.
City of Buffalo, Appellant-Respondent
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 8, 2007.
Published
Appeal and cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Eugene M. Fahey, J.), entered October 27, 2006. The order granted in part defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the second and third causes of action.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs. Present—Scudder, P.J., Gorski, Martoche, Smith and Green, JJ.