Cases

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ambrosio, J.), dated April 16, 2003, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the answer for failure to timely comply with certain court-ordered discovery. The appeal brings up for review so much of an order of the same court dated August 7, 2003, as, upon renewal and reargument, adhered to the or

OPINION OF THE COURT Richard F. Braun, J. This is a personal injury action. Plaintiff (Plaintiff) moves, *105pursuant to CPLR 3103 and 2304, to quash the subpoena of a nonparty, Plaintiff’s treating physician. Defendant Columbia University (Defendant) cross-moves, pursuant to CPLR 3126, to strike Plaintiff’s expert response for the physician. <

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered August 28, 1996, which, in an action by a laborer to recover for personal injuries, granted defendant owner’s motion to amend its answer to include the affirmative defense of exclusivity of workers’ compensation and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on that defense, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny summary judgment based on such affirmative defense and to reinstate th

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered April 21, 1994, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of defendant’s liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6), unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of granting defendant summary judgment, and dismissing the cause of action based on Labor Law § 240 (1), and otherwise affirmed, without costs. It is well settled that

Matter of Brooks v New York City Tr. Auth. (2025 NY Slip Op 00130) Matter of Brooks v New York City Tr. Auth. 2025 NY Slip Op 00130 Decided on January 9, 2025 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bu

Brooks v City of Buffalo (2022 NY Slip Op 05629) Brooks v City of Buffalo 2022 NY Slip Op 05629 Decided on October 7, 2022 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 43

*837In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York City Housing Authority dated October 25, 2006, which, in effect, adopted the recommendation of a hearing officer dated October 5, 2006, made upon the petitioner’s failure to appear at the hearing, sustaining certain charges against the petitioner, and terminated her tenancy in public housing, the New York City

Thomas C. Chimera, J. Plaintiff moves for summary judgment in his action to recover the sum of $505.51 for unpaid salary, against defendant City of New York, and for judgment against defendant New York City Employees’ Retirement System declaring that said sum be included in ‘ ‘ earnable compensation ” as a basis for determination of petitioner’s pension payment. Defendants cite subdivision b of section 93c-2.0 of the Administrati

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER Lawrence E. Kahn, U.S. District Judge I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff John Brooks ■ commenced this action against Defendant City of Utica alleging religious discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,' 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYS URL”), N.Y. Exec. Law § 296. Dkt.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Lippmann, J.), entered February 5, 2004, which, in an action by bus passengers for personal injuries, granted the motion of defendants-respondents Transit Authority and bus driver for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, modified, on the law, to deny the motion and to reinstate the complaint as to plaintiff Bennett, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. Plaintiffs a

Plaintiffs appeal from the district court’s award of summary judgment in favor of defendants (referred to collectively as the “City”). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and specification of issues for review. We conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the City on the ground that plaintiffs lacked standing, under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, to bring their Endan

714 F.Supp.2d 419 (2010) Barry GIBBS, Plaintiff, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Louis Eppolito, Sr., James Fairchild, Louis Rango, John Muldoon, Anthony Marra, Defendants. No. 06-CV-5112 (ILG). United States District Court, E.D. New York. May 28, 2010. *420 Barry C. Scheck, Emma Kate Freudenberger, Nick Joel Brustin, Neufeld Scheck &am;

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York City Housing Authority dated September 18, 2013, adopting the recommendation of a hearing officer, also dated September 18, 2013, made after a hearing, finding that the petitioner was ineligible to continue her occupancy of an apartment in a public housing development on the ground of, inter alia, nondesirability, the appeal is f

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karen S. Smith, J), entered November 15, 2007, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. The infant plaintiff allegedly was injured while climbing an *432eight-foot fence around a public playground when he slipped and got caught on one of the six-inch spikes at the top.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stall-man, J.), entered July 27, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the motions by defendants HWH 71, Beardslee and Corper for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Defendant property owners made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that the

AMENDED MEMORANDUM *195AND ORDER1 SARIS, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION New York City and forty-two New York counties have brought suit against numerous pharmaceutical manufacturers and subsidiaries alleging Medicaid fraud in violation of the federal Best Prices Statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1

In an action pursuant to RPAPL article 15, inter alia, to compel the determination of claims to real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (O’Rourke, J.), dated July 25, 2005, which denied his motion for summary judgment on his cause of action for a permanent easement by necessity over land owned by the defendant and granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

11 N.Y.3d 766 (2008) FILIP DI SANZA, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Defendants, and CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Respondent. Court of Appeals of the State of New York. Decided September 11, 2008. Susan R. Nudelman, Dix Hills, for appellant. *767 Richard W. Babinecz, New York City, and Helman R. Broo

Daly, J. The attorneys of record for the New York City Housing Authority, a defendant in this action to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained by the plaintiff in *741the course of demolition work performed by his employer, move for an order permitting them to withdraw as such attorneys. The movants were engaged as attorneys by a casu

People v Brooks (2025 NY Slip Op 25178) [*1] People v Brooks 2025 NY Slip Op 25178 Decided on August 4, 2025 Criminal Court Of The City Of New York, Kings County Zelmanovitz, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary