policy underlying rule in New York

2011The policy underlying the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk is “to facilitate free and vigorous participation in athletic activities” (Benitez v New York -2- 1484 CA 10-01081 City Bd. of Educ., 73 NY2d 650, 657 ; see Anand v Kapoor, 61 AD3d 787 , 792, affd ___ NY3d ___ [Dec. 21, 2010]).

2011The policy underlying the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk is “to facilitate free and vigorous participation in athletic activities” (Benitez v New York City Bd. of Educ., 73 NY2d 650, 657 [1989]; see Anand v Kapoor, 61 AD3d 787 , 792 [2009], affd 15 NY3d 946 [2010]).

2011The policy underlying the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk is “to facilitate free and vigorous participation in athletic activities” (Benitez v New York -2- 1484 CA 10-01081 City Bd. of Educ., 73 NY2d 650, 657 ; see Anand v Kapoor, 61 AD3d 787 , 792, affd ___ NY3d ___ [Dec. 21, 2010]).

2011The policy underlying the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk is “to facilitate free and vigorous participation in athletic activities” (Benitez v New York City Bd. of Educ., 73 NY2d 650, 657 [1989]; see Anand v Kapoor, 61 AD3d 787 , 792 [2009], affd 15 NY3d 946 [2010]).

2024This rule allows the government to maintain belated actions to enforce public rights regardless of the governmental or business nature of the government-sponsored activity that created the rights" ( RCR Servs. v Herbil Holding Co. , 229 AD2d 379, 380 [internal quotation marks omitted]). "'There is no federal statute of limitations applicable to mortgage foreclosure actions brought by the United States or its federal agencies'" ( Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Scheinberg , 216 AD3d 652, 654 , quoting Fleet Natl.

2018However, the policy underlying the rule established in Carmel v Lunney , supra , does not require dismissal of the entirety of plaintiff's legal malpractice claim, because the remainder of his claim that defendants failed to advise him of the potential immigration consequences of traveling outside the United States as a result of entering a guilty plea does not dispute the validity of his conviction ( see generally Carmel v Lunney, supra; see also Bass & Ullman v Chanes , 185 AD2d 750 [1st Dept 1992]).

2017“The presumption that a warning will be heeded is based on the assumption that persons exercise ordinary care for their own safety,” and “that a reasonable person will act appropriately if given adequate information.” (American Law of Products Liability 3d § 34:37 [2016].) The policy underlying the presumption is to “reinforce the basic duty to warn, [and] to encourage manufacturers to produce safer products,” and “[wjithout the presumption, recovery would be precluded in some cases, even where the evidence proved that the dangerous propensities of the product caused the plaintiffs injuries.”

2011John’s Univ. ( 69 AD3d 702, 703 [2010]) held that “[generally, when a plaintiff seeks to recover damages against an employer based on an employee’s actions committed within the scope of his or her employment, the employer is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, not negligent hiring or supervision.” This policy underlying this rule seeks to remove the potential for an employer to be doubly liable for an employee’s single tortious act.

2011The policy underlying the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk is “to facilitate free and vigorous participation in athletic activities” (Benitez v New York City Bd. of Educ., 73 NY2d 650, 657 [1989]; see Anand v Kapoor, 61 AD3d 787 , 792 [2009], affd 15 NY3d 946 [2010]).

2009As originally promulgated by the NLRB, the single employer doctrine sets forth four criteria to determine whether two or more companies are sufficiently interrelated to constitute a single entity: (1) interrelation of operations; (2) centralized control of labor relations; (3) common management; and (4) common ownership or financial control of the entities in question (see Radio & Television Technicians v Broadcast Service of Mobile, Inc., 380 US at 256 ; Baker v Stuart Broadcasting Co., 560 F2d 389, 392 [1977]; Arculeo v On-Site Sales & Mktg., LLC, 425 F3d 193, 198 [2005]; see also Cook v Arr

2009As originally promulgated by the NLRB, the single employer doctrine sets forth four criteria to determine whether two or more companies are sufficiently interrelated to constitute a single entity: (1) interrelation of operations; (2) centralized control of labor relations; (3) common management; and (4) common ownership or financial control of the entities in question (see Radio & Television Technicians v Broadcast Service of Mobile, Inc., 380 US at 256 ; Baker v Stuart Broadcasting Co., 560 F2d 389, 392 [1977]; Arculeo v On-Site Sales & Mktg., LLC, 425 F3d 193, 198 [2005]; see also Cook v Arr

2003In view of this strong public policy, it has been found insufficient to impeach a verdict where a juror alleges that she had been “threatened by the foreman, who repeatedly shouted and screamed obscenities” and even threatened to “throw [the juror] out the window”; where the jurors attested that they and other jurors discussed the case prior to the conclusion of the trial; and that other jurors were predisposed to find the defendant guilty (People v Redd, 164 AD2d at 35-36 ; see also People v Maddox, 139 AD2d 597, 598 [2d Dept 1988], lv denied 72 NY2d 862 [1988] [allegations of “personal * * *

2002It is objectionable not because it has no appreciable probative value but because it has too much.” (1A Wigmore, Evidence § 58.2, at 1212 [Tillers rev 1983].) The policy underlying the rule is designed to prevent conviction on evidence of a defendant’s criminal history and unsavory character rather than his actual commission of the crime charged (see People v Alvino, 71 NY2d at 241 ; People v Lewis, 69 NY2d 321, 325 [1987]; People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d at 359; People v Cook, 42 NY2d 204, 208 [1977]; Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 4-501 [Farrell 11th ed]).

2002It is objectionable not because it has no appreciable probative value but because it has too much.” (1A Wigmore, Evidence § 58.2, at 1212 [Tillers rev 1983].) The policy underlying the rule is designed to prevent conviction on evidence of a defendant’s criminal history and unsavory character rather than his actual commission of the crime charged (see People v Alvino, 71 NY2d at 241 ; People v Lewis, 69 NY2d 321, 325 [1987]; People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d at 359; People v Cook, 42 NY2d 204, 208 [1977]; Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 4-501 [Farrell 11th ed]).

2002It is objectionable not because it has no appreciable probative value but because it has too much.” (1A Wigmore, Evidence § 58.2, at 1212 [Tillers rev 1983].) The policy underlying the rule is designed to prevent conviction on evidence of a defendant’s criminal history and unsavory character rather than his actual commission of the crime charged (see People v Alvino, 71 NY2d at 241 ; People v Lewis, 69 NY2d 321, 325 [1987]; People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d at 359; People v Cook, 42 NY2d 204, 208 [1977]; Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 4-501 [Farrell 11th ed]).

2001Co., 136 AD2d 532, 532-534 [2d Dept 1998].) The policy underlying the doctrine of res judicata and its relatives “is that with respect to a single matter there should not be more than a single lawsuit, so as to prevent harassment and vexatious litigation.” (Pfeiffer at 533 .) That policy is not threatened when the plaintiff is merely given the opportunity to collect full compensation.

1996This rule allows the government to maintain belated actions to enforce public rights regardless of the 'governmental’ or 'business’ nature of the government-sponsored activity that created the rights” (United States v 93 Ct. Corp., supra, at 389; see also, United States v Summerlin, supra; Wright, Federal Courts § 22, at 127 [5th ed].

1996This rule allows the government to maintain belated actions to enforce public rights regardless of the 'governmental’ or 'business’ nature of the government-sponsored activity that created the rights” (United States v 93 Ct. Corp., supra, at 389; see also, United States v Summerlin, supra; Wright, Federal Courts § 22, at 127 [5th ed].

1995The Statute of Limitations on a medical malpractice claim is tolled when "there is continuous treatment for the same illness, injury or condition which gave rise to the * * * act, omission or failure [complained of].” (CPLR 214-a.) The policy underlying the doctrine "seeks to maintain the physician-patient relationship in the belief that the most efficacious medical care will be maintained when the attending physician remains on a case from onset to cure” (McDermott v Torre, 56 NY2d 399, 408 ; see, Borgia v City of New York, 12 NY2d 151 ).

1995The Statute of Limitations on a medical malpractice claim is tolled when "there is continuous treatment for the same illness, injury or condition which gave rise to the * * * act, omission or failure [complained of]." (CPLR 214-a.) The policy underlying the doctrine "seeks to maintain the physician-patient relationship in the belief that the most efficacious medical care will be maintained when the attending physician remains on a case from onset to cure" ( McDermott v Torre , 56 N.Y.2d 399, 408 ; see , Borgia v City of New York , 12 N.Y.2d 151 ).

1995This Court has repeatedly held that where the continuing treatment is provided by someone other than the practitioner alleged to have been negligent, there must be " 'an agency or other relevant relationship’ ” between the two (Meath v Mishrick, 68 NY2d 992, 994 , quoting McDermott v Torre, supra, at 403; see, Florio v Cook, 48 NY2d 792 , affg 65 AD2d 548 ).

1995This Court has repeatedly held that where the continuing treatment is provided by someone other than the practitioner alleged to have been negligent, there must be "`an agency or other relevant relationship'" between the two ( Meath v Mishrick , 68 N.Y.2d 992, 994 , quoting McDermott v Torre , supra , at 403; see , Florio v Cook , 48 N.Y.2d 792 , affg 65 AD2d 548 ).

1995The Statute of Limitations on a medical malpractice claim is tolled when "there is continuous treatment for the same illness, injury or condition which gave rise to the * * * act, omission or failure [complained of].” (CPLR 214-a.) The policy underlying the doctrine "seeks to maintain the physician-patient relationship in the belief that the most efficacious medical care will be maintained when the attending physician remains on a case from onset to cure” (McDermott v Torre, 56 NY2d 399, 408 ; see, Borgia v City of New York, 12 NY2d 151 ).

1995The Statute of Limitations on a medical malpractice claim is tolled when "there is continuous treatment for the same illness, injury or condition which gave rise to the * * * act, omission or failure [complained of]." (CPLR 214-a.) The policy underlying the doctrine "seeks to maintain the physician-patient relationship in the belief that the most efficacious medical care will be maintained when the attending physician remains on a case from onset to cure" ( McDermott v Torre , 56 N.Y.2d 399, 408 ; see , Borgia v City of New York , 12 N.Y.2d 151 ).