green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
72.4 score
“to establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) a breach thereof, and (3) injury proximately resulting therefrom.”
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Looney v. Macy's Inc.
to establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) a breach thereof, and (3) injury proximately resulting therefrom.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Zorbas v. United States Trust Co.
to establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) a breach thereof, and (3) injury proximately resulting therefrom
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
ARK77 v. Archdiocese of N.Y.
(Solomon v City of New York, 66 NY2d 1026, 1027 [1985]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
John Doe 42 v. Yeshiva Univ.
To establish a negligence claim, "a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) a breach thereof, and (3) injury proximately resulting therefrom" ( Solomon v City of New York , 66 NY2d 1026, 1027 [1985]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Adams v. City of New Rochelle
(2×)
Footnotes Footnote 1: In order to prevail on a negligence claim, "a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) a breach thereof, and (3) injury proximately resulting therefrom" ( Solomon v City of New York , 66 NY2d 1026, 1027 [1985]; accord Porcasi v Oji , 220 AD3d 899, 900 [2d Dept 2023]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hailan Cui v. State of New York
"To establish a prima facie case of negligence, a [claimant] must demonstrate (1) a duty owed by the defendant to the [claimant], (2) a breach thereof, and (3) injury proximately resulting therefrom" ( Solomon v City of New York , 66 NY2d 1026, 1027 [1985]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
O.H. v. National Vision, Inc.
DISCUSSION5 A. Negligent Hiring To state a claim for negligence under New York law, the plaintiff must show: “(1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) a breach thereof, and (3) injury proximately resulting therefrom.” Ferreira v. City of Binghamton, 194 N.E.3d 239 , 245–46 (N.Y. 2022) (quoting Solomon v. City of New York, 489 N.E.2d 1294, 1294 (N.Y. 1985)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Peters
Negligence Under New York Law1 To establish a prima facie case of negligence under New York law, “a plaintiff must show: (1) that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care; (2) that the defendant breached that duty; and (3) that the plaintiff suffered damages as a proximate result of that breach.” Casiano, 2009 WL 3246836 , at *3 (citing Solomon v. City of New York, 66 N.Y.2d 1026, 1027 (1985)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Miranda v. New York-Presbyterian Hosp.
To establish common-law negligence, the plaintiff must prove that the defendants owed him a duty of care and breached that duty, and that the breach proximately caused his injuries (see Solomon v City of New York, 66 NY2d 1026, 1027 [1985]; Wayburn v Madison Land Ltd.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
Solomon v. City of New York, 66 N.Y.2d 1026, 1027 , 489 N.E.2d 1294, 1294 (1985)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In re China Construction Bank Corp.
Solomon v. City of New York, 489 N.E.2d 1294, 1294 (N.Y. 1985).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Wellsville Manor LLC v. Great American Insurance Company
Solomon v. City of New York, 66 N.Y.2d 1026, 1027 (1985)); see also In re World Trade Ctr.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
John Doe v. Archdiocese of N.Y.
Holdings, 27 NY3d 817, 825 [2016]; Solomon v City of New York, 66 NY2d 1026, 1027 [1985]; Akins v Glens Falls City School Dist., 53 NY2d 325, 333 [1981]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Yehl v. State of New York
(2×)
To recover damages resulting from a breach of this duty, a claimant bears the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the credible evidence: (1) that defendant owed claimant a duty of care; (2) that a dangerous condition existed constituting a breach of that duty; (3) that defendant either created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of it and failed to remedy it within a reasonable time; and (4) that the condition was a substantial factor in causing claimant's injuries ( see Solomon v City of New York , 66 NY2d 1026, 1027 [1985]; Derdiarian v Felix Contr.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Espinoza v. Foundry Workers LLC
Dist., 53 N.Y.2d 325, 333 (1981)); Quarles v. Columbia Sussex Corp., 997 F. Supp. 327, 330 (E.D.N.Y. 1998) (To establish negligence under New York law, a plaintiff must show that: “(1) the defendant owed the plaintiff a cognizable duty of care; (2) the defendant breached that duty; and (3) the plaintiff suffered damage as a proximate result of the breach.”) (citing Solomon v. City of New York, 66 N.Y.2d 1026, 1027 (1985)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Smith v. Target Corporation
Solomon v. City of New York, 66 N.Y.2d 1026, 1027 , 489 N.E.2d 1294, 1294-95 (1985)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Pimentel v. Target Corporation
Solomon v. City of New York, 66 N.Y.2d 1026, 1027 (1985)).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Nellenback v. Madison County
(4×)
Holdings</i>, 27 NY3d 817, 825 [2016]; <i>Solomon v City of New York</i>, 66 NY2d 1026, 1027 [1985]; <i>Akins v Glens Falls City School Dist.</i>, 53 NY2d 325, 333 [1981]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mangano v. 62 Seguine Ave Realty, LLC
Defendants' Duty of Care To establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) a breach thereof, and (3) injury proximately resulting therefrom ( see Solomon by Solomon v City of New York , 66 NY2d 1026, 1027 [1985]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gallego v. Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.
Solomon v. City of New York, 66 N.Y.2d 1026, 1027 (1985))).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
132W26 Owner, LLC v. Paramount Bldrs. Contr. Corp.
To prevail on a claim for negligence, there must exist: (1) a duty owed from defendant to the plaintiff, (2) a breach of the duty, and (3) the breach of duty must be the proximate cause of the injury (Solomon v New York, 66 NY 2d 1026, 1027 [1985]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Christina Schwab v. Target Corporation
Solomon v. City of New York, 66 N.Y.2d 1026, 1027 , 489 N.E.2d 1294, 1294-95 (1985)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mahoney v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc.
Solomon v. City of New York, 66 N.Y.2d 1026, 1027 (1985))); Reynolds v. Amtrak, --- F. Supp.3d ---, 2024 WL 4337554 , at *6 (S.D.N.Y.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Watson v. Intercounty Paving Assoc., LLC
Analysis To establish a prima facie claim for negligence under New York law, "a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) a breach thereof, and (3) injury proximately resulting therefrom" (Solomon v City of New York, 66 NY2d 1026, 1027 [1985]; accord JE. v Beth Israel Hosp., 295 AD2d 281,283 [1st Dept 2002]; Wayburn v Madison Land Ltd.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lifchits v. Key 4U Transporation Corp. Bus
See Thomas v. Cnty. of Putnam, 262 F. Supp. 2d 241, 251 (S.D.N.Y. 2003); Solomon by Solomon v. City of New York, 66 N.Y.2d 1026, 1027 (N.Y. 1985). “[W]hen the burden of proof at trial would fall on the nonmoving party, it ordinarily is sufficient for the movant to point to a lack of evidence to go to the trier of fact on an essential element of the nonmovant’s claim.” See Feis v. U.S., 394 F. App’x 797, 798-99 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Jaramillo v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 536 F.3d 140, 145 (2d Cir. 2008)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Charlier v. 21 Astor Place Condominium
Negligent Hiring, Supervision, and Retention To state a claim for negligent hiring, supervision, or retention, a plaintiff must plead, in addition to the elements required for a negligence claim,8 (1) the existence of an employee-employer relationship; (2) that the employer “knew or should have known of the employee’s propensity for the conduct which caused the injury” and (3) “a nexus or connection 8 To state a negligence claim, “a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) a breach thereof, and (3) injury proximately resulting therefrom.” So…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
D.B. v. Long Is. Jewish-Hillside Med. Ctr.
Solomon v. New York, 66 N.Y.2d 1026, 1027 (1985); Pasternack v. Lab.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Vicente v. Target Corporation
Solomon v. City of New York, 66 N.Y.2d 1026, 1027 (1985))); Johnson v. AFNI, Inc., No. 22-CV-2930, 2023 WL 2970919 , at *2 (S.D.N.Y.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Forest House, LLC v. Santos
"To establish a prima facie claim of negligence, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) a breach thereof, and (3) injury proximately resulting therefrom" ( Solomon v City of New York, 66 NY2d 1026, 1027 [1985]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Abadi v. American Airlines Inc.
“To establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) a breach thereof, and (3) injury proximately resulting therefrom.” Solomon by Solomon v. City of New York, 489 N.E.2d 1294, 1294 (N.Y. 1985); see also Dkt.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rothman v. 40 W 25 LLC
To establish a prima facie claim for negligence under New York law, "a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) a breach thereof, and (3) injury proximately resulting therefrom" (Solomon v City of New York, 66 NY2d 1026, 1027 [1985]; accord JE. v Beth Israel Hosp., 295 AD2d 281,283 [1st Dept 2002]; Wayburn v Madison Land Ltd.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Du v. Party Perfect Rentals LLC
Dist., 53 N.Y.2d 325, 333 (1981)); Quarles v. Columbia Sussex Corp., 997 F. Supp. 327, 330 (E.D.N.Y. 1998) (To establish negligence under New York law, a plaintiff must show that: “(1) the defendant owed the plaintiff a cognizable duty of care; (2) the defendant breached that duty; and (3) the plaintiff suffered damage as a proximate result of the breach.”) (citing Solomon v. City of N.Y., 66 N.Y.2d 1026, 1027 (1985)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kirbaran v. Target Corporation
Solomon v. City of New York, 66 N.Y.2d 1026, 1027 (1985)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
T.N. v. Great Neck Pub. Schs. Bd. of Educ.
Solomon v. New York, 66 N.Y.2d 1026, 1027 (1985); Pasternack v. Lab.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rothman v. 40 W 25 LLC
To establish a prima facie claim for negligence under New York law, “a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) a breach thereof, and (3) injury proximately resulting therefrom” (Solomon v City of New York, 66 NY2d 1026, 1027 [1985]; accord J.E. v Beth Israel Hosp., 295 AD2d 281, 283 [1st Dept 2002]; Wayburn v Madison Land Ltd.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
G.R. v. Garden City Pub. Schs.
Solomon v. New York, 66 N.Y.2d 1026, 1027 (1985); Pasternack v. Lab.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hammonds v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation
Neglience/Premises Liability Under New York Law “To establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) a breach thereof, and (3) injury proximately resulting therefrom.” Solomon v. City of New York, 66 N.Y.2d 1026, 1027 (1985) (citations omitted); see also Coyle v. United States, 954 F.3d 146, 148 (2d Cir. 2020) (“To establish liability [for negligence] under New York law, a plaintiff must prove (1) that the defendant owed her a duty; (2) that the defendant breached that duty; and (3) that she suffered injuries …
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Fuisz v. 6 E. 72nd St. Corp.
Solomon v City of New York , 66 NY2d 1026, 1027 [1985]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Fuisz v. 6 E. 72nd St. Corp.
Solomon v City of New York , 66 NY2d 1026, 1027 [1985]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Equitable Fin. Life Ins. Co. v. Chanti
These allegations sufficiently state the elements of a negligence claim and of a negligent misrepresentation claim ( see Solomon v City of New York , 66 NY2d 1026, 1027 [1985]; see also generally Kimmell v Schaefer , 89 NY2d 257, 264 [1996]; Ossining Union Free School Dist. v Anderson LaRocca Anderson , 73 NY2d 417, 424-426 [1989]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dooley v. United States
Dist., 424 N.E.2d 531, 535 (N.Y. 1981) (referring to causation in general terms) with Solomon by Solomon v. City of New York, 489 N.E.2d 1294, 1294 (N.Y. 1985) (referring only to proximate causation). 3 22-995 Dooley v. United States The district court’s finding that the plaintiff here acted negligently may, in several respects, be viewed as dubious on this record.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Smith v. Roadie, Inc.
“To establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must demonstrate: ‘(1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) a breach thereof, and (3) injury proximately resulting therefrom.’” Uber Technologies, 551 F. Supp.3d at 353 (quoting Solomon v. City of N.Y., 66 N.Y.2d 1026, 1027 (1985)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Campodonico v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP
Solomon v. City of New York, 489 N.E.2d 1294, 1294-95 (N.Y. 1985)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Shah v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP
Solomon v. City of New York, 489 N.E.2d 1294, 1294-95 (N.Y. 1985)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Maitland v. Target Corporation
Solomon v. City of New York, 66 N.Y.2d 1026, 1027 (1985))); Johnson v. AFNI, Inc., No. 22-CV-2930, 2023 WL 2970919 , at *2 (S.D.N.Y.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Morgan v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP
Solomon v. City of New York, 489 N.E.2d 1294, 1294-95 (N.Y. 1985)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jada v. Costco Wholesale Corporation
Solomon v. City of New York, 66 N.Y.2d 1026, 1027 (1985))); Johnson v. AF NI, Inc., No. 22- CV-2930, 2023 WL 2970919 , at *2 (S.D.N-Y.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Betts v. Sixty Lower East Side, LLC
Solomon v. City of New York, 66 N.Y.2d 1026, 1027 (N.Y. 1985)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Baker v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP
Under New York law, “[t]o establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) a breach thereof, and (3) injury proximately resulting therefrom.” Solomon by Solomon v. City of N.Y., 499 N.Y.S.2d 392, 392 (1985) (citations omitted).
Carolyn Solomon, an Infant, by Her Father and Natural Guardian, Arthur Solomon
v.
City of New York
v.
City of New York
New York Court of Appeals.
Dec 26, 1985.
489 N.E.2d 1294
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Cheryl Eisberg Moin for appellants., Frederick A. O. Schwarz, Jr., Corporation Counsel (Miriam Skolnick of counsel), for respondent.
Cited by 502 opinions | Published
Citer courts: E.D. New York (1)
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
To establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) a breach thereof, and (3) injury proximately resulting therefrom (Akins v Glens Falls City School Dist., 53 NY2d 325, 333, citing Prosser, Torts § 30, at 143 [4th ed]). In its proprietary capacity, "a municipality is under a duty to maintain its park and playground facilities in a reasonably safe condition” (Nicholson v Board of Educ., 36 NY2d 798, 799). This duty "includes not only physical care of the property but also prevention of ultrahazardous and criminal activity of which it has knowledge” (Benjamin v City of New York, 64 NY2d 44, 46). Bicycle riding on a busy promenade does not rise to the level of "ultrahazardous and criminal” (see, Zarillo v State of New York, 8 AD2d 651, affd 7 NY2d 943; cf. Benjamin v City of New York, 64 NY2d 44, supra; Caldwell v Village of Is. Park, 304 NY 268; Nicholson v Board of Educ., [*1028] 36 NY2d 798, supra). Thus, as a matter of law, the city did not breach its duty to plaintiffs.
Nor has plaintiff stated a cause of action based on the city’s alleged failure to enforce the regulations prohibiting bicycle riding in the area where the infant plaintiff was injured. By promulgating and enforcing these regulations, intended for the protection of the general public, defendant did not assume a special relationship toward the infant plaintiff carrying with it a special duty to protect the latter from the prohibited activity (Sorichetti v City of New York, 65 NY2d 461, 468; De Long v County of Erie, 60 NY2d 296, 304; Florence v Goldberg, 44 NY2d 189, 195-196).
Because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a duty of care owed by defendant, the complaint was properly dismissed.
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander and Titone concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.