43 New York opinions name it 4 courts 1988–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Zuckerman v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2015In opposition to the motions, plaintiff, the School District defendants, Natare, and Bette & Cring, failed to raise triable issues of fact (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). 2015In opposition to the motions, plaintiff, the School District defendants, Natare, and Bette & Cring, failed to raise triable issues of fact (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). | 2 | 4 |
Mayer v. Mahopac Central School Districtgreen2 sentences2015School Dist., 29 AD3d 653, 655 [2006]; Sangineto v Mamaroneck Union Free School Dist., 282 AD2d 596 [2001]). 2015Finally, while the compulsory nature of the gym class activities precludes an assumption of risk defense, it is not an impediment to summary judgment, as it does not deprive the School District of its defense that the incident was sudden and unexpected ( see Knightner v William Floyd Union Free School Dist., 51 AD3d 876 ; Mayer v Mahopac Cent. [*3]School Dist., 29 AD3d 653, 655 ; Sangineto v Mamaroneck Union Free School Dist., 282 AD2d 596 ). | 1 | 2 |
Diaz-Kamen v. Blydenburghgreen2 sentences2008We held that the school district’s knowledge of the injury, and that it was caused when the petitioner was hit by another player, did not apprise the school district of the claim that school personnel negligently supervised the student players (see also Bridgeview at Babylon Cove Homeowners Assn., Inc. v Incorporated Vil. of Babylon, 41 AD3d 404 [2007]; Matter of Doyle v Elwood Union Free School Dist., 39 AD3d 544, 545 [2007]; Matter of Scott v Huntington Union Free School Dist., 29 AD3d 1010, 1011 [2006]; Conte v Valley Stream Cent. 2007In determining whether to permit the service of a late notice of claim, the court will generally consider three factors: (1) whether the petitioner has a reasonable excuse for his or her failure to timely serve a notice of claim; (2) whether the school district acquired actual notice of the essential facts of the claim within 90 days after the claim arose, or a reasonable time thereafter; and (3) whether the delay would substantially prejudice the school district in its defense (see Matter of Doyle v Elwood Union Free School Dist., 39 AD3d 544 [2007]; Matter of Padovano v Massapequa Union Free | 1 | 2 |
Padovano v. Massapequa Union Free School Districtgreen2 sentences2007Ctr., 6 NY3d 531 [2006]; Matter of Padovano v Massapequa Union Free School Dist., supra; Bovich v East Meadow Pub. 2007In determining whether to permit the service of a late notice of claim, the court will generally consider three factors: (1) whether the petitioner has a reasonable excuse for his or her failure to timely serve a notice of claim; (2) whether the school district acquired actual notice of the essential facts of the claim within 90 days after the claim arose, or a reasonable time thereafter; and (3) whether the delay would substantially prejudice the school district in its defense (see Matter of Doyle v Elwood Union Free School Dist., 39 AD3d 544 [2007]; Matter of Padovano v Massapequa Union Free | 1 | 2 |
Ryder v. Garden City School Districtgreen2 sentences2004School Dist., 307 AD2d 907, 908 [2003]; Matter of Price v Board of Educ. of City of Yonkers, 300 AD2d 310, 311 [2002]; Matter of Brown v County of Westchester, 293 AD2d 748, 749 [2002]; Matter of Ryder v Garden City School Dist., 277 AD2d 388, 389 [2000]). 2003This cannot fairly be said to have apprised the School District of the claim that it was negligent in hiring and training its employees and that it failed to properly supervise the infant (see Matter of Price v Board of Educ., 300 AD2d 310 [2002]; Matter of Ryder v Garden City School Dist., 277 AD2d 388 [2000]; Matter of Dunlea v Mahopac Cent. | 1 | 2 |
Price v. Board of Educationgreen2 sentences2004School Dist., 307 AD2d 907, 908 [2003]; Matter of Price v Board of Educ. of City of Yonkers, 300 AD2d 310, 311 [2002]; Matter of Brown v County of Westchester, 293 AD2d 748, 749 [2002]; Matter of Ryder v Garden City School Dist., 277 AD2d 388, 389 [2000]). 2003This cannot fairly be said to have apprised the School District of the claim that it was negligent in hiring and training its employees and that it failed to properly supervise the infant (see Matter of Price v Board of Educ., 300 AD2d 310 [2002]; Matter of Ryder v Garden City School Dist., 277 AD2d 388 [2000]; Matter of Dunlea v Mahopac Cent. | 1 | 2 |
Aragona v. State of New Yorkgreen1 sentence2021"Labor Law § 241(6) imposes a nondelegable duty upon owners and contractors to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to construction workers" ( Aragona v State of New York , 147 AD3d 808, 809 [internal quotation marks omitted]). | 1 | 1 |
Kievman v. Philipgreen1 sentence2020"When one driver chooses to gratuitously signal to another person, indicating that it is safe to proceed or that the signaling driver will yield the right-of-way, the signaling driver assumes a duty to do so reasonably under the circumstances" ( Dolce v Cucolo , 106 AD3d 1431, 1431 ; see Kievman v Philip , 84 AD3d 1031, 1031 ). | 1 | 1 |
Janice Mazella v. William Beals, M.D.green1 sentence2020"The overarching principle governing determinations of proximate cause is that a defendant's negligence qualifies as a proximate cause where it is a substantial cause of the events which produced the injury'" ( Hain v Jamison , 28 NY3d 524, 528-529 , quoting Mazella v Beals , 27 NY3d 694, 706 [internal quotation marks omitted]). | 1 | 1 |
Finke v. City of Glen Covegreen1 sentence2019However, if the defendant is a municipality, the plaintiff may not raise in the complaint causes of action or legal theories that were not directly or indirectly mentioned in the notice of claim and that "substantially alter" the nature of the claim or add a new theory of liability ( Finke v City of Glen Cove , 55 AD3d 785, 786 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see O'Connor v Huntington U.F.S.D. , 87 AD3d 571 ). | 1 | 1 |
O'Connor v. Huntington U.F.S.D.green1 sentence2019However, if the defendant is a municipality, the plaintiff may not raise in the complaint causes of action or legal theories that were not directly or indirectly mentioned in the notice of claim and that "substantially alter" the nature of the claim or add a new theory of liability ( Finke v City of Glen Cove , 55 AD3d 785, 786 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see O'Connor v Huntington U.F.S.D. , 87 AD3d 571 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Lanza v. Wagnergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Amabile v. City of Buffalogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Cimino v. County of Nassaugreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sola v. Village of Great Neck Plazagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bracco v. Zuhirgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Patricia B. v. Rose Marie O.green | 1 | 1 |
| Angelo Capobianco, Inc. v. Brentwood Union Free School Districtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Chainani v. Board of Educationgreen | 1 | 1 |
| del Carmen v. Brentwood Union Free School Districtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Scott v. Huntington Union Free School Districtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sica v. Board of Educationgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Conroy v. Smithtown Central School Districtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Siegell v. Herricks Union Free School Districtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lesesne v. Lesesnegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mirand v. City of New Yorkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Slone v. Salzergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Petropoulos v. New York City Transit Authoritygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Matott v. Wardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Brown v. County of Westchestergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Corrales v. Middle Country Central School Districtgreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Leahy v. County Wide Home Loans, Inc.
green
2 sentences2015Finally, while the compulsory nature of the gym class activities precludes an assumption of risk defense, it is not an impediment to summary judgment, as it does not deprive the School District of its defense that the incident was sudden and unexpected (see Knightner v William Floyd Union Free School Dist., 51 AD3d 876 [2008]; Mayer v Mahopac Cent. 2015Finally, while the compulsory nature of the gym class activities precludes an assumption of risk defense, it is not an impediment to summary judgment, as it does not deprive the School District of its defense that the incident was sudden and unexpected ( see Knightner v William Floyd Union Free School Dist., 51 AD3d 876 ; Mayer v Mahopac Cent. [*3]School Dist., 29 AD3d 653, 655 ; Sangineto v Mamaroneck Union Free School Dist., 282 AD2d 596 ). | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Santiago v. City of New York
green
2 sentences2015School Dist., 29 AD3d 653, 655 [2006]; Sangineto v Mamaroneck Union Free School Dist., 282 AD2d 596 [2001]). 2015Finally, while the compulsory nature of the gym class activities precludes an assumption of risk defense, it is not an impediment to summary judgment, as it does not deprive the School District of its defense that the incident was sudden and unexpected ( see Knightner v William Floyd Union Free School Dist., 51 AD3d 876 ; Mayer v Mahopac Cent. [*3]School Dist., 29 AD3d 653, 655 ; Sangineto v Mamaroneck Union Free School Dist., 282 AD2d 596 ). | 2 | 2015–2015 |
In re the Estate of Bleakley
green
2 sentences2007School Dist., 3 AD3d 492, 493 [2004]; Matter of Bordan v Mamaroneck School Dist., 230 AD2d 792 [1996]; Matter of Sica v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 226 AD2d 542, 542-543 [1996]). 2005The key factors to be considered in determining whether to grant an application to serve a late notice of claim are whether the school district acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts of the claim within the statutory 90-day period, whether the petitioners had a reasonable excuse for the delay, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the school district in its defense on the merits (cf. Matter of Bordan v Mamaroneck School Dist, 230 AD2d 792 [1996]). | 2 | 2005–2007 |
Williams v. Nassau County Medical Center
green
2 sentences2007Ctr., 6 NY3d 531 [2006]; Matter of Padovano v Massapequa Union Free School Dist., supra; Bovich v East Meadow Pub. 2006Ctr., 6 NY3d 531 [2006]; Matter of Conroy v Smithtown Cent. | 2 | 2006–2007 |
Cammarato v. 16 Admiral Perry Plaza, LLC
green
1 sentence2025The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to present evidence raising a triable issue of fact as to whether the action falls within an exception to the statute of limitations' or whether the statute of limitations has been tolled" ( Cammarato v 16 Admiral Perry Plaza, LLC , 216 AD3d 903, 904 , quoting Osborn v DeChiara , 165 AD3d 1270 , 1271; see Schulman v Schulman Family Enters. , 222 AD3d 898 , 899). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Lapidot v. State
green
1 sentence2024Since the Notice of Claim was in the possession of the County Attorney in the first instance, the County Respondents cannot claim (and do not claim) any prejudice from Petitioners? request for defense/indemnification on February "l, 2024, and, thus,·the County Respondents are equitably estopped from asserting Local Law No. 3 's limitations defense against the Petitioners under the circumst~ces of this cas_e. See Polak v. City o/Schenectady, 181 A.D.2d 233,235 (3d Dept. 1992); Lapidot v. State, 88 Misc. 2d 1090 (Ct. CL 1976); see, e.g., Sharpe v. Sturm, 2& A.D.3d 777,_778, (2d Dept. 2006) (dism | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Polak v. City of Schenectady
green
1 sentence2024Since the Notice of Claim was in the possession of the County Attorney in the first instance, the County Respondents cannot claim (and do not claim) any prejudice from Petitioners? request for defense/indemnification on February "l, 2024, and, thus,·the County Respondents are equitably estopped from asserting Local Law No. 3 's limitations defense against the Petitioners under the circumst~ces of this cas_e. See Polak v. City o/Schenectady, 181 A.D.2d 233,235 (3d Dept. 1992); Lapidot v. State, 88 Misc. 2d 1090 (Ct. CL 1976); see, e.g., Sharpe v. Sturm, 2& A.D.3d 777,_778, (2d Dept. 2006) (dism | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Owen v. R.J.S. Safety Equipment, Inc.
green
1 sentence2022Safety Equip. , 79 NY2d 967, 970 ; Andriienko v Compass Group USA, Inc. , 174 AD3d 558 , 559-560; Philippou v Baldwin Union Free Sch. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Bauer v. Female Academy of the Sacred Heart
green
1 sentence2021However, the Supreme Court erred in granting those branches of the School District's motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action asserted against it on the ground that those causes of action were duplicative of the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action, as the plaintiffs may assert alternative Labor Law causes of action ( see generally Bauer v Female Academy of Sacred Heart , 97 NY2d 445, 451 ). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital
green
1 sentence2021Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the School District's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiff's opposing papers ( see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp. , 68 NY2d 320, 324 ). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Dolce v. Cucolo
green
1 sentence2020"When one driver chooses to gratuitously signal to another person, indicating that it is safe to proceed or that the signaling driver will yield the right-of-way, the signaling driver assumes a duty to do so reasonably under the circumstances" ( Dolce v Cucolo , 106 AD3d 1431, 1431 ; see Kievman v Philip , 84 AD3d 1031, 1031 ). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Horn Ex Rel. Horn v. Bellmore Union Free School District
green
1 sentence2020Dist. , 139 AD3d 1006, 1007 ; Matter of Quinn v Wallkill Cent. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Custodi v. Town of Amherst
green
1 sentence2020Pushing a swing is not the type of activity to which the doctrine of assumption of the risk is applicable ( see id. at 88 ). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Hain v. Jamison
green
1 sentence2020"The overarching principle governing determinations of proximate cause is that a defendant's negligence qualifies as a proximate cause where it is a substantial cause of the events which produced the injury'" ( Hain v Jamison , 28 NY3d 524, 528-529 , quoting Mazella v Beals , 27 NY3d 694, 706 [internal quotation marks omitted]). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Roche v. Bryant
green
1 sentence2018Since the plaintiff presented only unsubstantiated hearsay in opposition to the School District's motion, he failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Nucci v Proper , 95 NY2d 597, 602 ; Weinstein v Nicolosi , 117 AD3d 1036, 1037 ; Roche v Bryant , 81 AD3d 707, 708 ; Allstate Ins. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Nucci v. Proper
green
1 sentence2018Since the plaintiff presented only unsubstantiated hearsay in opposition to the School District's motion, he failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Nucci v Proper , 95 NY2d 597, 602 ; Weinstein v Nicolosi , 117 AD3d 1036, 1037 ; Roche v Bryant , 81 AD3d 707, 708 ; Allstate Ins. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Weinstein v. Nicolosi
green
1 sentence2018Since the plaintiff presented only unsubstantiated hearsay in opposition to the School District's motion, he failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Nucci v Proper , 95 NY2d 597, 602 ; Weinstein v Nicolosi , 117 AD3d 1036, 1037 ; Roche v Bryant , 81 AD3d 707, 708 ; Allstate Ins. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Lindsey Ross, by and Through Her Parents and Next Friends, Michael and Diane Ross v. Board of Education of Township High School District 211
green
1 sentence2018Ross v. Bd. of Educ. ( 486 F.3d 279 [7th Cir. 2007] ), is a case in which res judicata barred a student who had previously sued the school district for violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act from bringing a second suit against the district for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Civil Rights Act, arising out of the same conduct that underlay the initial lawsuit. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Allstate Insurance v. Keil
green
1 sentence2018Co. v Keil , 268 AD2d 545 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Matter of Highbridge Broadway, LLC v. Assessor of the City of Schenectady neutral | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Jones v. Geoghan green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Lonergan v. Almo green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Brannan v. Korn green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Santiago v. Quattrociocchi green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Diana G. v. Our Lady Queen of Martyrs School green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Noseworthy v. City of New York green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Quinones v. Altman green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Clark v. Amboy Bus Co. green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Lee v. Ratz green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Vitale v. Levine green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Afghani v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Vargas v. Akbar green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Goldschmidt v. City of New York green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Gentile v. Gentile neutral | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Campbell v. Scully neutral | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Bickwid v. Deutsch green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Sigmond v. Liberty Lines Transit, Inc. green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Wisoff v. County of Westchester green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Conte v. Valley Stream Central High School District green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Santiago v. Friedman green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.