6 New York opinions name it 1 courts 2006–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cava Construction Co. v. Gealtec Remodeling Corp.green1 sentence2024Co., Inc. v Gealtec Remodeling Corp. , 58 AD3d 660, 662 [2d Dept 2009]). | 1 | 1 |
Dougherty v. 359 Lewis Ave. Assoc., LLCgreen1 sentence2023Assoc., LLC , 191 AD3d at 764 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Romero v Waterfront N.Y. , 168 AD3d 1012 , 1013). | 1 | 1 |
Remes v. 513 West 26th Realty, LLCgreen1 sentence2016Moreover, although the plaintiffs contended in their bill of particulars that the staircase was in violation of Administrative Code of the City of New York § 27-375 (h), the defendants established, prima facie, that this section of the Administrative Code was not applicable to the subject staircase since it did not serve as a required exit from the building (see Administrative Code §§ 27-232, 27-375; Cusumano v City of New York, 15 NY3d 319, 325 [2010]; Fishelson v Kramer Props., LLC, 133 AD3d 706 [2015]; Fajardo v Schapiro, 120 AD3d 468, 469 [2014]; Remes v 513 W. 26th Realty, LLC, 73 AD3d 66 | 1 | 1 |
Cusumano v. City of New Yorkgreen1 sentence2016Moreover, although the plaintiffs contended in their bill of particulars that the staircase was in violation of Administrative Code of the City of New York § 27-375 (h), the defendants established, prima facie, that this section of the Administrative Code was not applicable to the subject staircase since it did not serve as a required exit from the building (see Administrative Code §§ 27-232, 27-375; Cusumano v City of New York, 15 NY3d 319, 325 [2010]; Fishelson v Kramer Props., LLC, 133 AD3d 706 [2015]; Fajardo v Schapiro, 120 AD3d 468, 469 [2014]; Remes v 513 W. 26th Realty, LLC, 73 AD3d 66 | 1 | 1 |
Schwartz v. Hershgreen1 sentence2016Moreover, although the plaintiffs contended in their bill of particulars that the staircase was in violation of Administrative Code of the City of New York § 27-375 (h), the defendants established, prima facie, that this section of the Administrative Code was not applicable to the subject staircase since it did not serve as a required exit from the building (see Administrative Code §§ 27-232, 27-375; Cusumano v City of New York, 15 NY3d 319, 325 [2010]; Fishelson v Kramer Props., LLC, 133 AD3d 706 [2015]; Fajardo v Schapiro, 120 AD3d 468, 469 [2014]; Remes v 513 W. 26th Realty, LLC, 73 AD3d 66 | 1 | 1 |
Fajardo v. Schapirogreen1 sentence2016Moreover, although the plaintiffs contended in their bill of particulars that the staircase was in violation of Administrative Code of the City of New York § 27-375 (h), the defendants established, prima facie, that this section of the Administrative Code was not applicable to the subject staircase since it did not serve as a required exit from the building (see Administrative Code §§ 27-232, 27-375; Cusumano v City of New York, 15 NY3d 319, 325 [2010]; Fishelson v Kramer Props., LLC, 133 AD3d 706 [2015]; Fajardo v Schapiro, 120 AD3d 468, 469 [2014]; Remes v 513 W. 26th Realty, LLC, 73 AD3d 66 | 1 | 1 |
Mainline Electric Corp. v. Pav-Lak Industries, Inc.green1 sentence2009Corp. v Pav-Lak Indus., Inc., 40 AD3d 939, 939-940 [2007]). | 1 | 1 |
Medina v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.green1 sentence2009The plaintiffs contention that the staircase was in violation of Administrative Code of the City of New York § 27-375 (h) was improperly raised for the first time in opposition to the motion (see Medina v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 41 AD3d 798, 800 [2007]; Mainline Elec. | 1 | 1 |
Viscusi v. Fennergreen1 sentence2006Thus, there are triable issues of fact as to whether the absence of the handrail was a proximate cause of the infant plaintiffs injuries and whether the fact that he was pushed by a fellow student severed any nexus between the City’s alleged negligence in the design of the staircase and his injuries (see Scala v Scala, 31 AD3d 423 [2006]; Asaro v Montalvo, 26 AD3d 306, 307 [2006]; Viscusi v Fenner, 10 AD3d 361, 362 [2004]; Cruz v Lormet Hous. | 1 | 1 |
Antoine v. Beegreen1 sentence2006Thus, there are triable issues of fact as to whether the absence of the handrail was a proximate cause of the infant plaintiffs injuries and whether the fact that he was pushed by a fellow student severed any nexus between the City’s alleged negligence in the design of the staircase and his injuries (see Scala v Scala, 31 AD3d 423 [2006]; Asaro v Montalvo, 26 AD3d 306, 307 [2006]; Viscusi v Fenner, 10 AD3d 361, 362 [2004]; Cruz v Lormet Hous. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kociecki v. EOP-Midtown Properties, LLC
green
1 sentence2016Moreover, although the plaintiffs contended in their bill of particulars that the staircase was in violation of Administrative Code of the City of New York § 27-375 (h), the defendants established, prima facie, that this section of the Administrative Code was not applicable to the subject staircase since it did not serve as a required exit from the building (see Administrative Code §§ 27-232, 27-375; Cusumano v City of New York, 15 NY3d 319, 325 [2010]; Fishelson v Kramer Props., LLC, 133 AD3d 706 [2015]; Fajardo v Schapiro, 120 AD3d 468, 469 [2014]; Remes v 513 W. 26th Realty, LLC, 73 AD3d 66 | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Fishelson v. Kramer Properties, LLC
green
1 sentence2016Moreover, although the plaintiffs contended in their bill of particulars that the staircase was in violation of Administrative Code of the City of New York § 27-375 (h), the defendants established, prima facie, that this section of the Administrative Code was not applicable to the subject staircase since it did not serve as a required exit from the building (see Administrative Code §§ 27-232, 27-375; Cusumano v City of New York, 15 NY3d 319, 325 [2010]; Fishelson v Kramer Props., LLC, 133 AD3d 706 [2015]; Fajardo v Schapiro, 120 AD3d 468, 469 [2014]; Remes v 513 W. 26th Realty, LLC, 73 AD3d 66 | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Birman v. Birman
green
1 sentence2007However, since the injured plaintiff did not know what caused her to fall, and did not claim at her deposition that she would not have fallen if handrails had been in place, it would be speculative to assume that these alleged violations proximately caused her fall (see Guiterrez v Iannacci 43 AD3d 868 [2007]; Lissauer v Shaarei Halacha, Inc., 37 AD3d 427 [2007]; Birman v Birman, 8 AD3d 219 [2004]; Bitterman v Grotyohann, 295 AD2d 383 [2002]). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Lissauer v. Shaarei Halacha, Inc.
green
1 sentence2007However, since the injured plaintiff did not know what caused her to fall, and did not claim at her deposition that she would not have fallen if handrails had been in place, it would be speculative to assume that these alleged violations proximately caused her fall (see Guiterrez v Iannacci 43 AD3d 868 [2007]; Lissauer v Shaarei Halacha, Inc., 37 AD3d 427 [2007]; Birman v Birman, 8 AD3d 219 [2004]; Bitterman v Grotyohann, 295 AD2d 383 [2002]). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Guiterrez v. Iannacci
green
1 sentence2007However, since the injured plaintiff did not know what caused her to fall, and did not claim at her deposition that she would not have fallen if handrails had been in place, it would be speculative to assume that these alleged violations proximately caused her fall (see Guiterrez v Iannacci 43 AD3d 868 [2007]; Lissauer v Shaarei Halacha, Inc., 37 AD3d 427 [2007]; Birman v Birman, 8 AD3d 219 [2004]; Bitterman v Grotyohann, 295 AD2d 383 [2002]). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Bitterman v. Grotyohann
green
1 sentence2007However, since the injured plaintiff did not know what caused her to fall, and did not claim at her deposition that she would not have fallen if handrails had been in place, it would be speculative to assume that these alleged violations proximately caused her fall (see Guiterrez v Iannacci 43 AD3d 868 [2007]; Lissauer v Shaarei Halacha, Inc., 37 AD3d 427 [2007]; Birman v Birman, 8 AD3d 219 [2004]; Bitterman v Grotyohann, 295 AD2d 383 [2002]). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Scala v. Scala
green
1 sentence2006Thus, there are triable issues of fact as to whether the absence of the handrail was a proximate cause of the infant plaintiffs injuries and whether the fact that he was pushed by a fellow student severed any nexus between the City’s alleged negligence in the design of the staircase and his injuries (see Scala v Scala, 31 AD3d 423 [2006]; Asaro v Montalvo, 26 AD3d 306, 307 [2006]; Viscusi v Fenner, 10 AD3d 361, 362 [2004]; Cruz v Lormet Hous. | 1 | 2006–2006 |