Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 New York opinions name it 1 courts 1983–2022 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Atlantic Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co.green2 sentences2021The reasonableness of trade restraint is analyzed under the "per se rule" or "rule of reason" ( Atlantic Richfield Co. v USA Petroleum Co. , 495 US 328, 342 [1990]). 2021The reasonableness of trade restraint is analyzed under the "per se rule" or "rule of reason" ( Atlantic Richfield Co. v USA Petroleum Co. , 495 US 328, 342 [1990]). | 2 | 2 |
Cohen v. Bread & Butter Entertainment LLCgreen2 sentences2022Copacabana was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the claim alleging violation of the Dram Shop Act (General Obligations Law § 11-101; Alcohol Beverage Control Law § 65 [2]), as it did not satisfy its initial burden of negating the possibility that it served alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person ( see Cohen v Bread & Butter Entertainment LLC , 73 AD3d 600, 600-601 [1st Dept 2010]; McGovern v 4299 Katonah , 5 AD3d 239, 240 [1st Dept 2004]). 2022Copacabana was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the claim alleging violation of the Dram Shop Act (General Obligations Law § 11-101; Alcohol Beverage Control Law § 65 [2]), as it did not satisfy its initial burden of negating the possibility that it served alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person ( see Cohen v Bread & Butter Entertainment LLC , 73 AD3d 600, 600-601 [1st Dept 2010]; McGovern v 4299 Katonah , 5 AD3d 239, 240 [1st Dept 2004]). | 1 | 1 |
McGovern v. 4299 Katonah Inc.green2 sentences2022Copacabana was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the claim alleging violation of the Dram Shop Act (General Obligations Law § 11-101; Alcohol Beverage Control Law § 65 [2]), as it did not satisfy its initial burden of negating the possibility that it served alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person ( see Cohen v Bread & Butter Entertainment LLC , 73 AD3d 600, 600-601 [1st Dept 2010]; McGovern v 4299 Katonah , 5 AD3d 239, 240 [1st Dept 2004]). 2022Copacabana was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the claim alleging violation of the Dram Shop Act (General Obligations Law § 11-101; Alcohol Beverage Control Law § 65 [2]), as it did not satisfy its initial burden of negating the possibility that it served alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person ( see Cohen v Bread & Butter Entertainment LLC , 73 AD3d 600, 600-601 [1st Dept 2010]; McGovern v 4299 Katonah , 5 AD3d 239, 240 [1st Dept 2004]). | 1 | 1 |
Newin Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.green1 sentence2016Co., 37 NY2d 211, 217 [1975]) “greater in scope than the issues determined in the prior proceeding” (Specialized Indus. | 1 | 1 |
Gilbert v. Albany Medical Centergreen1 sentence2006Ctr., 9 AD3d 643, 644 [2004]), which he misused, and that his misuse was the sole proximate cause of his injuries, the claim alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) should have been dismissed. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pipia v. Nassau County
green
2 sentences2012Then, this Court reasoned that, because a claim alleging a violation of Labor Law § 741 (2) is enforced pursuant to Labor Law § 740 (4) (d), “the same waiver is effected by the institution of a cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 741 (2)” (Pipia v Nassau County, 34 AD3d at 667 ). 2012Then, this Court reasoned that, because a claim alleging a violation of Labor Law § 741 (2) is enforced pursuant to Labor Law § 740 (4) (d), “the same waiver is effected by the institution of a cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 741 (2)” (Pipia v Nassau County, 34 AD3d at 667 ). | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Ciesinski v. Town of Aurora
green
1 sentence2003Plaintiff has not raised in his brief any challenge to the order insofar as it granted those parts of defendants’ motions seeking summary judgment dismissing the claim alleging the violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) and has therefore abandoned any such challenge (see Ciesinski v Town of Aurora, 202 AD2d 984 ). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Melber v. 6333 Main Street, Inc.
green
1 sentence2000We agree with defendants that Labor Law § 240 (1) is inapplicable inasmuch as plaintiff’s injuries did not result from a fall from an elevated worksite or other elevation-related risk (see, Melber v 6333 Main St., 91 NY2d 759, 763 ; Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co., 78 NY2d 509, 514 ). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Rocovich v. Consolidated Edison Co.
green
1 sentence2000We agree with defendants that Labor Law § 240 (1) is inapplicable inasmuch as plaintiff’s injuries did not result from a fall from an elevated worksite or other elevation-related risk (see, Melber v 6333 Main St., 91 NY2d 759, 763 ; Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co., 78 NY2d 509, 514 ). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Adams v. Glass Fab, Inc.
green
1 sentence1997In so finding, we reject the contention that the heated asphalt could be considered the equivalent of dirt, debris, scattered tools or materials pursuant to such regulation since it “was an integral part of the [roof] that was being constructed” (Adams v Glass Fab, 212 AD2d 972, 973 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Comes v. New York State Electric & Gas Corp.
green
1 sentence1995Because defendant established that it exercised no supervision or control over the location of the portable toilet and plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact on that issue, the claim alleging a violation of Labor Law § 200 was properly dismissed (see, Comes v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 82 NY2d 876 ). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Slyke v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.
green
1 sentence1983Furthermore, plaintiffs’ contention that there is no defense to a violation of sections 240 and 241 of the Labor Law is without merit because defendant may raise the defense of comparative negligence in a claim alleging violation of subdivision 6 of section 241 (Long v Forest-Fehlhaber, 55 NY2d 154 ; Van Slyke v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 93 AD2d 990 ). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Long v. Forest-Fehlhaber
green
1 sentence1983Furthermore, plaintiffs’ contention that there is no defense to a violation of sections 240 and 241 of the Labor Law is without merit because defendant may raise the defense of comparative negligence in a claim alleging violation of subdivision 6 of section 241 (Long v Forest-Fehlhaber, 55 NY2d 154 ; Van Slyke v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 93 AD2d 990 ). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.