claim based violation in New York

2021Socy. of U.S. , 218 AD2d 513, 514-515 [1st Dept 1995] [where the plaintiffslipped on food left on the floor of the work area he stated a claim based on a violation of Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (e); cf. Vital v City of New York , 43 AD3d 309, 310-311 [1st Dept 2007] [a transient sandwich wrapper on an exposed roof does not constitute an accumulation of debris under Industrial Code § 23-1.7 [e][2]).

2021Socy. of U.S. , 218 AD2d 513, 514-515 [1st Dept 1995] [where the plaintiffslipped on food left on the floor of the work area he stated a claim based on a violation of Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (e); cf. Vital v City of New York , 43 AD3d 309, 310-311 [1st Dept 2007] [a transient sandwich wrapper on an exposed roof does not constitute an accumulation of debris under Industrial Code § 23-1.7 [e][2]).

2021Socy. of U.S. , 218 AD2d 513, 514-515 [1st Dept 1995] [where the plaintiffslipped on food left on the floor of the work area he stated a claim based on a violation of Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (e); cf. Vital v City of New York , 43 AD3d 309, 310-311 [1st Dept 2007] [a transient sandwich wrapper on an exposed roof does not constitute an accumulation of debris under Industrial Code § 23-1.7 [e][2]).

2021Socy. of U.S. , 218 AD2d 513, 514-515 [1st Dept 1995] [where the plaintiffslipped on food left on the floor of the work area he stated a claim based on a violation of Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (e); cf. Vital v City of New York , 43 AD3d 309, 310-311 [1st Dept 2007] [a transient sandwich wrapper on an exposed roof does not constitute an accumulation of debris under Industrial Code § 23-1.7 [e][2]).

2013The common-law right of sepulcher gives a party thus entitled “the absolute right to the immediate possession of a decedent’s body for preservation and burial, and . . . damages will be awarded against any person who unlawfully interferes with that right or improperly deals with the decedent’s body.” (Melfi v Mount Sinai Hosp., 64 AD3d 26, 31 [1st Dept 2009]; see Darcy v Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y., 202 NY 259 [1911].) A claim based on a violation of the right of sepulcher is designed to compensate the party “for the emotional suffering and mental anguish which they experience from the

2013The common-law right of sepulcher gives a party thus entitled “the absolute right to the immediate possession of a decedent’s body for preservation and burial, and . . . damages will be awarded against any person who unlawfully interferes with that right or improperly deals with the decedent’s body.” (Melfi v Mount Sinai Hosp., 64 AD3d 26, 31 [1st Dept 2009]; see Darcy v Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y., 202 NY 259 [1911].) A claim based on a violation of the right of sepulcher is designed to compensate the party “for the emotional suffering and mental anguish which they experience from the

2013The common-law right of sepulcher gives a party thus entitled “the absolute right to the immediate possession of a decedent’s body for preservation and burial, and . . . damages will be awarded against any person who unlawfully interferes with that right or improperly deals with the decedent’s body.” (Melfi v Mount Sinai Hosp., 64 AD3d 26, 31 [1st Dept 2009]; see Darcy v Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y., 202 NY 259 [1911].) A claim based on a violation of the right of sepulcher is designed to compensate the party “for the emotional suffering and mental anguish which they experience from the

2013(See Melfi, 64 AD3d 26 [2009]; Shipley, 80 AD3d 171 [2010].) This court finds that neither defendant Hospital nor plaintiffs have made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law as to plaintiffs’ common-law cause of action.

2013The common-law right of sepulcher gives a party thus entitled “the absolute right to the immediate possession of a decedent’s body for preservation and burial, and . . . damages will be awarded against any person who unlawfully interferes with that right or improperly deals with the decedent’s body.” (Melfi v Mount Sinai Hosp., 64 AD3d 26, 31 [1st Dept 2009]; see Darcy v Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y., 202 NY 259 [1911].) A claim based on a violation of the right of sepulcher is designed to compensate the party “for the emotional suffering and mental anguish which they experience from the

2013The common-law right of sepulcher gives a party thus entitled “the absolute right to the immediate possession of a decedent’s body for preservation and burial, and . . . damages will be awarded against any person who unlawfully interferes with that right or improperly deals with the decedent’s body.” (Melfi v Mount Sinai Hosp., 64 AD3d 26, 31 [1st Dept 2009]; see Darcy v Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y., 202 NY 259 [1911].) A claim based on a violation of the right of sepulcher is designed to compensate the party “for the emotional suffering and mental anguish which they experience from the

2008The defendant sustained its burden (see Buechel v Bain, 97 NY2d 295, 304 [2001], cert denied, 535 US 1096 [2002]; D’Arata v New York Cent.

2004Absent any further basis in the record for us to conclude that Tolga Oil can be liable for the obligation that ROC seeks to impose, a claim based on the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil simply cannot lie (see Matter of Morris v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., supra at 144; cf. Chase Manhattan Bank [Natl.