University defendant in New York

2015Baldridge v State of New York, 293 AD2d 941, 942 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 608 [2002]).

2015Baldridge v State of New York, 293 AD2d 941, 942 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 608 [2002]).

2015The court therefore properly granted that part of the motion of the University defendants to dismiss the complaint against the University for lack of jurisdiction (see Sinhogar v Parry, 53 NY2d 424, 431 [1981]; see e.g.

2015The court therefore properly granted that part of the motion of the University defendants to dismiss the complaint against the University for lack of jurisdiction (see Sinhogar v Parry, 53 NY2d 424, 431 [1981]; see e.g.

2013Here, the documents submitted by the University defendants, which included a medical leave request form with an annexed letter from the plaintiffs physician, do not constitute documentary evidence for the purposes of a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) (see Granada Condominium III Assn. v Palomino, 78 AD3d 996, 997 [2010]).

2013Here, the documents submitted by the University defendants, which included a medical leave request form with an annexed letter from the plaintiffs physician, do not constitute documentary evidence for the purposes of a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) (see Granada Condominium III Assn. v Palomino, 78 AD3d 996, 997 [2010]).

2013Specifically, the plaintiff did not sufficiently allege that the University defendants’ involvement in the Fraternity’s initiation process was of a degree that gave rise to a duty (see Rothbard v Colgate Univ., 235 AD2d 675, 676 [1997]; Lloyd v Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, 1999 WL 47153 , *3, 1999 US Dist LEXIS 906 , *7 [ND NY 1999]).

2013Specifically, the plaintiff did not sufficiently allege that the University defendants’ involvement in the Fraternity’s initiation process was of a degree that gave rise to a duty (see Rothbard v Colgate Univ., 235 AD2d 675, 676 [1997]; Lloyd v Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, 1999 WL 47153 , *3, 1999 US Dist LEXIS 906 , *7 [ND NY 1999]).

2024Previously, this Court affirmed denial of the University's motion to dismiss the complaint, finding "that where, as here, a complaint alleges that a university received credible reports of ongoing and pervasive criminal conduct against students, perpetrated on campus by other students within the university's control, the university had a legal duty to take appropriate responsive action" ( id. at 1332 [emphasis omitted]).

2023State Univ. of New York , 192 AD3d at 1102 [where a university hearing board rejected the complainant's testimony that she was incapable of giving consent, there was insufficient evidence to prove that she had not given affirmative consent]).

2010The documentary evidence submitted with the petition demonstrates that, contrary to petitioner’s allegations, the finding that petitioner had cheated in violation of the college’s ethics code was based not just on hearsay (but see Matter of Ebert v Yeshiva Univ., 28 AD3d 315, 316 [2006]), but also on petitioner’s admission that he glanced at another student’s test paper.

2008The hazards contemplated by Labor Law § 240 (I) involve those “related to the effects of gravity where protective devices are called for . . . because of a difference between the elevation level of the required work and a lower level” (Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co., 78 NY2d 509, 514 [1991]; accord Grant v Reconstruction Home, 267 AD2d 555, 556 [1999], appeal dismissed 95 NY2d 831 [2000], lv dismissed 95 NY2d 825 [2000]).

2008The hazards contemplated by Labor Law § 240 (I) involve those “related to the effects of gravity where protective devices are called for . . . because of a difference between the elevation level of the required work and a lower level” (Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co., 78 NY2d 509, 514 [1991]; accord Grant v Reconstruction Home, 267 AD2d 555, 556 [1999], appeal dismissed 95 NY2d 831 [2000], lv dismissed 95 NY2d 825 [2000]).

2008The hazards contemplated by Labor Law § 240 (I) involve those “related to the effects of gravity where protective devices are called for . . . because of a difference between the elevation level of the required work and a lower level” (Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co., 78 NY2d 509, 514 [1991]; accord Grant v Reconstruction Home, 267 AD2d 555, 556 [1999], appeal dismissed 95 NY2d 831 [2000], lv dismissed 95 NY2d 825 [2000]).

2003Co., 212 AD2d 450, 451 [1995]).