People v. Cambridge, 42 A.D.3d 350 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). · Go Syfert
People v. Cambridge, 42 A.D.3d 350 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
15 citation events (15 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Sen v. GR Realty Holdings LLC (nysupctnewyork, 2025-06-05)
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sen v. GR Realty Holdings LLC
N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. · 2025 · confidence medium
Here, the second element of res ipsa is not satisfied with respect to the Tenants because they did not "share[] exclusive control over the [terrace furnitme] with [the other defendants] to such a degree that [their] failme to fulfill [their] responsibilities constitutes a rational explanation for the occurrence of this accident" (Hodges v Royal Realty Corp., 42 AD3d 350,352 [1st Dept. 2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rosario v. Cao
N.Y. App. Div. · 2024 · confidence medium
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur allows an inference of negligence to be drawn where (1) the event is of a type that does not normally occur in the absence of negligence, (2) it was caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendants, and (3) plaintiff's actions did not contribute in any way to the occurrence ( Hodges v Royal Realty Corp. , 42 AD3d 350, 351-352 [1st Dept 2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Chambers v. Tilden Towers Hous. Co. Section II, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · confidence medium
Exclusive control of the instrumentality bringing about the injury, which is necessary for the doctrine to apply, is absent where, as here, an owner has ceded all responsibility for maintenance and repair to its elevator service contractor ( see Hodges v Royal Realty Corp. , 42 AD3d 350, 351-352 [1st Dept 2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Medinas v. MILT Holdings LLC
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Finally, res ipsa is not applicable to this case, because plaintiff is unable to establish the necessary element of “exclusive control” (see Hodges v Royal Realty Corp., 42 AD3d 350, 352 [1st Dept 2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ezzard v. One E. Riv. Place Realty Co., LLC (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
In Hodges v Royal Realty Corp. ( 42 AD3d 350, 352 [1st Dept 2007]), we recognized that a full-service contract to maintain an elevator provides a sufficient predicate for the element of control as against the maintenance company.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Levine v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
Nor does the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur avail plaintiff where defendant had ceded all maintenance and repair responsibility to an independent contractor (see Hodges v Royal Realty Corp., 42 AD3d 350, 351-352 [2007]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Kleinberg v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
Hodges v Royal Realty Corp., 42 AD3d 350, 351-352 [2007]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Bluestone v. J. Tortorella Heating & Gas Specialists, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see also · confidence low
Since Tortorella Heating’s heater replacement work did not involve the use of chemicals, plaintiff cannot invoke the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to hold it liable for the damage allegedly caused by chemicals to the vinyl lining of his pool (see Edelman, 117 AD3d at 641 ; see also Hodges v Royal Realty Corp., 42 AD3d 350 [1st Dept 2007]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Bertram Cambridge
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jul 12, 2007.
42 A.D.3d 350
Published

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena K. Uviller, J.), rendered September 8, 2004, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted assault in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion, without granting a hearing. The felony complaint, indictment and voluntary disclosure form, along with the prosecutor’s write-up read into the record at the arraignment, provided defendant with the details of his alleged assault upon his next-door neighbor, as well as the fact that he was arrested 10 minutes later within blocks of the crime scene, at which time a witness who knew him made a confirmatory identification. Although these materials made it clear to defendant that the predicate for his arrest was the assault, his moving papers did not address that assault in any manner or assert any relevant basis for suppression (see People v Jones, 95 NY2d 721 [2001]). Defendant’s assertion of innocent behavior “at the time he was detained” was irrelevant under the circumstances, and was insufficient to raise a factual dispute requiring a hearing (see People v Burton, 6 NY3d 584, 587 [2006]; People v Lopez, 5 NY3d 753 [2005]; People v Roldan, 37 AD3d 300 [2007]). Concur— Tom, J.E, Williams, McGuire, Malone and Kavanagh, JJ.