7 New York opinions name it 4 courts 1996–2026 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Russin v. Louis N. Picciano & Songreen2 sentences2026Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litig ., 57 F Supp 3d 328, 341 [SDNY 2014] [describing site owner's duty of care with respect to premises]; Labor Law § 201 [requiring that a workplace "be so constructed, equipped, arranged, operated and conducted as to provide a reasonable and adequate protection to the lives, health and safety of all persons employed therein or lawfully frequenting such places"]; Russin v Louis N. Picciano & Son , 54 NY2d 311, 316-317 [1981] ["Section 200 of the Labor Law . . . codified the common-law duty imposed upon an owner or general contractor to provide construction site 2026Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litig ., 57 F Supp 3d 328, 341 [SDNY 2014] [describing site owner's duty of care with respect to premises]; Labor Law § 201 [requiring that a workplace "be so constructed, equipped, arranged, operated and conducted as to provide a reasonable and adequate protection to the lives, health and safety of all persons employed therein or lawfully frequenting such places"]; Russin v Louis N. Picciano & Son , 54 NY2d 311, 316-317 [1981] ["Section 200 of the Labor Law . . . codified the common-law duty imposed upon an owner or general contractor to provide construction site | 1 | 1 |
Espinal v. Melville Snow Contractors, Inc.green1 sentence2025A&B Heating did not owe any duty to Plaintiff or his employer as A&B Heating was not in a contractual relationship with either of those parties (see Dibrino v Rockefeller Center North, Inc., 230 AD3d 127 , 132-33 [1st Dept 2024] citing Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., Inc., 98 NY2d 136, 138 [2002]). | 1 | 1 |
Pita v. Roosevelt Union Free School Districtgreen1 sentence2024Dist., 156 AD3d 833, 835 [2d Dept 2017]; see also Kronick v L.P. | 1 | 1 |
Petrone v. Fernandezgreen1 sentence2015This Court reversed in Petrone, invoking the Bard dissent's description of the Bard rule as being "that the strict liability involved in Collier is the only kind of liability the owner of a domestic animal may face – that, in other words, there is no such thing as negligence liability where harm done by domestic animals is concerned" (Petrone v Fernandez, 12 NY3d 546, 550 [2009], quoting Bard, 6 NY3d at 601 [R. | 1 | 1 |
Bard v. Jahnkegreen1 sentence2015This Court reversed in Petrone, invoking the Bard dissent's description of the Bard rule as being "that the strict liability involved in Collier is the only kind of liability the owner of a domestic animal may face – that, in other words, there is no such thing as negligence liability where harm done by domestic animals is concerned" (Petrone v Fernandez, 12 NY3d 546, 550 [2009], quoting Bard, 6 NY3d at 601 [R. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Smalls v. AJI Industries, Inc.
green
2 sentences2025Together with the fact that Defendant did not establish prima facie the inapplicability of Building Code § 27-371 (h), the Court need not address the sufficiency of Plaintiff's opposing papers ( see CPLR 3212 [b]; Smalls , 10 NY3d 733 [2008]; Alvarez , 68 NY2d at 324 ; Winegrad , 64 NY2d at 853 ; Surujnaraine , 88 AD3d at 867 ). 2025Together with the fact that Defendant did not establish prima facie the inapplicability of Building Code § 27-371 (h), the Court need not address the sufficiency of Plaintiff's opposing papers ( see CPLR 3212 [b]; Smalls , 10 NY3d 733 [2008]; Alvarez , 68 NY2d at 324 ; Winegrad , 64 NY2d at 853 ; Surujnaraine , 88 AD3d at 867 ). | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Surujnaraine v. Valley Stream Central High School District
green
2 sentences2025Together with the fact that Defendant did not establish prima facie the inapplicability of Building Code § 27-371 (h), the Court need not address the sufficiency of Plaintiff's opposing papers ( see CPLR 3212 [b]; Smalls , 10 NY3d 733 [2008]; Alvarez , 68 NY2d at 324 ; Winegrad , 64 NY2d at 853 ; Surujnaraine , 88 AD3d at 867 ). 2025Together with the fact that Defendant did not establish prima facie the inapplicability of Building Code § 27-371 (h), the Court need not address the sufficiency of Plaintiff's opposing papers ( see CPLR 3212 [b]; Smalls , 10 NY3d 733 [2008]; Alvarez , 68 NY2d at 324 ; Winegrad , 64 NY2d at 853 ; Surujnaraine , 88 AD3d at 867 ). | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Winegrad v. New York University Medical Center
green
2 sentences2025Together with the fact that Defendant did not establish prima facie the inapplicability of Building Code § 27-371 (h), the Court need not address the sufficiency of Plaintiff's opposing papers ( see CPLR 3212 [b]; Smalls , 10 NY3d 733 [2008]; Alvarez , 68 NY2d at 324 ; Winegrad , 64 NY2d at 853 ; Surujnaraine , 88 AD3d at 867 ). 2025Together with the fact that Defendant did not establish prima facie the inapplicability of Building Code § 27-371 (h), the Court need not address the sufficiency of Plaintiff's opposing papers ( see CPLR 3212 [b]; Smalls , 10 NY3d 733 [2008]; Alvarez , 68 NY2d at 324 ; Winegrad , 64 NY2d at 853 ; Surujnaraine , 88 AD3d at 867 ). | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital
green
2 sentences2025Together with the fact that Defendant did not establish prima facie the inapplicability of Building Code § 27-371 (h), the Court need not address the sufficiency of Plaintiff's opposing papers ( see CPLR 3212 [b]; Smalls , 10 NY3d 733 [2008]; Alvarez , 68 NY2d at 324 ; Winegrad , 64 NY2d at 853 ; Surujnaraine , 88 AD3d at 867 ). 2025Together with the fact that Defendant did not establish prima facie the inapplicability of Building Code § 27-371 (h), the Court need not address the sufficiency of Plaintiff's opposing papers ( see CPLR 3212 [b]; Smalls , 10 NY3d 733 [2008]; Alvarez , 68 NY2d at 324 ; Winegrad , 64 NY2d at 853 ; Surujnaraine , 88 AD3d at 867 ). | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Petrone v. Fernandez
green
1 sentence2015The Appellate Division declined to apply Bard, noting that Bard and Collier were not concerned with, "and did not need to address, the question of whether negligence involving the violation of a leash law can result in liability when an unleashed dog engages in a chase that proximately causes injury" (Petrone, 53 AD3d at 228 ). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Polomie v. Golub Corp.
green
1 sentence1996Since the lack of specificity makes such inquiry impossible in the instant case, the element of foreseeability was not established to support either a common law negligence claim or a violation of Real Property Law § 231 (2) (see, Muniz v Flohern, Inc., 77 NY2d, supra, at 870-871; Polomie v Golub Corp., 226 AD2d 979 ; cf., Beatty v National Assn. for Advancement of Colored People, 194 AD2d, supra, at 361-364). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.