Murphy defendant in New York

2024Murphy's claim that plaintiff had stopped at a yellow light does not constitute a nonnegligent explanation for the accident; Acevedo v Akhtar, 204 AD3d 596 (1st Dept 2022): In opposition to plaintiffs’ prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment, defendant failed to offer a non-negligent explanation for the rear-end collision.

2024Murphy's claim that plaintiff had stopped at a yellow light does not constitute a nonnegligent explanation for the accident; Acevedo v Akhtar, 204 AD3d 596 (1st Dept 2022): In opposition to plaintiffs’ prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment, defendant failed to offer a non-negligent explanation for the rear-end collision.

2023Both expert affirmations were conclusory and insufficient to establish the Murphy defendants' prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law ( see Coscia v Mosca , 203 AD3d 695, 697 ; Lamalfa v New York Methodist Hosp. , 202 AD3d 665, 666 ).

2023Both expert affirmations were conclusory and insufficient to establish the Murphy defendants' prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law ( see Coscia v Mosca , 203 AD3d 695, 697 ; Lamalfa v New York Methodist Hosp. , 202 AD3d 665, 666 ).

2023Since the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, it is not necessary to consider the sufficiency of the opposition papers submitted by the plaintiff ( see Mermelstein v Campbell Fitness NC, LLC , 201 AD3d 923, 925 ; Felix v Falletta Carting Corp. , 131 AD3d 667, 668 ; Forlenza v Miglio , 130 AD3d 567, 569 ).

2023Since the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, it is not necessary to consider the sufficiency of the opposition papers submitted by the plaintiff ( see Mermelstein v Campbell Fitness NC, LLC , 201 AD3d 923, 925 ; Felix v Falletta Carting Corp. , 131 AD3d 667, 668 ; Forlenza v Miglio , 130 AD3d 567, 569 ).

2023Both expert affirmations were conclusory and insufficient to establish the Murphy defendants' prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law ( see Coscia v Mosca , 203 AD3d 695, 697 ; Lamalfa v New York Methodist Hosp. , 202 AD3d 665, 666 ).

2023Both expert affirmations were conclusory and insufficient to establish the Murphy defendants' prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law ( see Coscia v Mosca , 203 AD3d 695, 697 ; Lamalfa v New York Methodist Hosp. , 202 AD3d 665, 666 ).

2023Since the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, it is not necessary to consider the sufficiency of the opposition papers submitted by the plaintiff ( see Mermelstein v Campbell Fitness NC, LLC , 201 AD3d 923, 925 ; Felix v Falletta Carting Corp. , 131 AD3d 667, 668 ; Forlenza v Miglio , 130 AD3d 567, 569 ).

2019Murphy's claim that plaintiff had stopped at a yellow light does not constitute a nonnegligent explanation for the accident ( see Elihu v Nicoleau , 173 AD3d 578 [1st Dept 2019]; Matos v Sanchez , 147 AD3d 585 [1st Dept 2017]).

2018Co. , 195 AD2d 981 ; see also Spier v Barker , 35 NY2d 444, 450 ; Gardner v Honda Motor Co. , 145 AD2d 41, 47 ).

2018Co. , 195 AD2d 981 ; see also Spier v Barker , 35 NY2d 444, 450 ; Gardner v Honda Motor Co. , 145 AD2d 41, 47 ).

2016Nor is this a case where a hyper-technical application of the law prevents an otherwise meritorious claimant from obtaining succession rights as a RFM {see id. at 653-655 ).

2000No allegations have been made nor proof tendered that Murphy sustained a medically cognizable physical injury beyond that naturally attendant to childbirth as a result of defendant’s negligent conduct (cf., Stiles v Sen, 152 AD2d 915 ).

1996However, the Murphy defendants, as abutting landowners, were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them since no showing was made that under the circumstances, there was any basis for imposing tort liability on them (see, Stewart v Town of Waterford, 152 AD2d 836, 838 ; Kiernan v Thompson, 137 AD2d 957, 958 ; Lodato v Town of Oyster Bay, 68 AD2d 904 ).

1996However, the Murphy defendants, as abutting landowners, were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them since no showing was made that under the circumstances, there was any basis for imposing tort liability on them (see, Stewart v Town of Waterford, 152 AD2d 836, 838 ; Kiernan v Thompson, 137 AD2d 957, 958 ; Lodato v Town of Oyster Bay, 68 AD2d 904 ).

1996As to the further course of conduct alleged by plaintiff to support his claim that he was "tortuously and slowly” discharged over a seven-year period, we find the gravamen of such allegations more closely resembling a claim alleging the wrongful discharge of an at-will employee, a cause of action not recognized in New York (see, Sabetay v Sterling Drug, 69 NY2d 329 ).

1996As to the further course of conduct alleged by plaintiff to support his claim that he was "tortuously and slowly” discharged over a seven-year period, we find the gravamen of such allegations more closely resembling a claim alleging the wrongful discharge of an at-will employee, a cause of action not recognized in New York (see, Sabetay v Sterling Drug, 69 NY2d 329 ).

1994In Wieder v Skala ( 80 NY2d 628 ) a law firm associate was allegedly discharged because he insisted that the firm report to the Appellate Division Disciplinary Committee another associate who purportedly had committed violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

1994In Wieder v Skala ( 80 NY2d 628 ) a law firm associate was allegedly discharged because he insisted that the firm report to the Appellate Division Disciplinary Committee another associate who purportedly had committed violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

1994Where an employee manual in substance states that employment will continue so long as work performance is satisfactory, and an employee relies on that statement by resigning from his prior employment or passing up other offers of employment, the employee who is later discharged without cause may have a viable claim for wrongful discharge (Weiner v McGraw-Hill, 57 NY2d 458 ).

1994Where an employee manual in substance states that employment will continue so long as work performance is satisfactory, and an employee relies on that statement by resigning from his prior employment or passing up other offers of employment, the employee who is later discharged without cause may have a viable claim for wrongful discharge (Weiner v McGraw-Hill, 57 NY2d 458 ).

1987Such limited exception — "that in every contract there is an implied undertaking on the part of each party that he will not intentionally and purposely do anything to prevent the other party from carrying out the agreement on his part” (Grad v Roberts, 14 NY2d 70, 75 ) — is consistent with basic rules of contract law and has ample support in precedent and other recognized authority (see, e.g., Murphy v American Home Prods.

1987Such limited exception — "that in every contract there is an implied undertaking on the part of each party that he will not intentionally and purposely do anything to prevent the other party from carrying out the agreement on his part" ( Grad v Roberts , 14 N.Y.2d 70, 75 ) — is consistent with basic rules of contract law and has ample support in precedent and other recognized authority ( see, e.g. , Murphy v American Home Prods.