Cases

Matter of Crawford v City of New York (2025 NY Slip Op 02341) Matter of Crawford v City of New York 2025 NY Slip Op 02341 Decided on April 23, 2025 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursu

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered May 27, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff’s cross motion to amend the complaint to add Officer William Phillips, Officer *555Brian Pinnick and Captain Reginald Patterson as defendants, in place of the John Does, pursuant to the “relation-back” doctrine, unanimously reversed, on

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered May 27, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff’s cross motion to amend the complaint to add Officer William Phillips, Officer *555Brian Pinnick and Captain Reginald Patterson as defendants, in place of the John Does, pursuant to the “relation-back” doctrine, unanimously reversed, on

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Pasquale Cappella appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Aliotta, J.), dated March 7, 2011, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against him. Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion of the defendant Pasquale Cappella for summary judgment di

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Pasquale Cappella appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Aliotta, J.), dated March 7, 2011, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against him. Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion of the defendant Pasquale Cappella for summary judgment di

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered March 16, 2007, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant Petrocelli’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. The complaint alleges that on March 31, 2003, at ap

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo S. Hagler, J.), entered on or about March 27, 2014, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted respondent’s cross motion to seal the papers it filed in opposition to the CPLR article 78 petition and the papers that petitioners filed in reply, unanimously dismissed, without costs. Petitioners’ right to appeal fr

OPINION OF THE COURT Shlomo S. Hagler, J. In this proceeding, petitioners Susan Crawford and Anjali Dalai (petitioners, Crawford or Dalai) move by notice of petition and verified petition, pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules article 78 (CPLR 3001) and the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law art 6) (FOIL), seeking the following relief: (1) declaring that respondent has acted unlawfully in fai

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated January 21, 2005, which, upon separate jury verdicts on the issues of liability and damages, finding it 60% at fault in the happening of the accident and the third-party defendant 40% at fault, and awarding the plaintiff damages in the sums of $350,000 for past pain and suffering and $350,000 for future pain

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the respondent to reinstate the petitioner’s New York City teaching license, the petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Butler, J.), entered August 3, 2015, as, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. Ordered that the order a

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

Order unanimously affirmed, respondent to recover of the appellant the costs of this appeal. No opinion. Concur — Peek, P. J., Breitel, Botein, Rabin and Cox, JJ.

8 N.Y.3d 591 (2007) 869 N.E.2d 634 838 N.Y.S.2d 458 In the Matter of CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC., Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Appellants. Court of Appeals of the State of New York. Argued May 2, 2007. Decided June 5, 2007. *592 Michael A. Cardozo, Co

Judgment unanimously reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event, on the ground of excessiveness of the verdict, unless the plaintiff stipulates to reduce said judgment to $85,000, with interest and costs, in which event the judgment, as so modified, is affirmed, without costs. Settle order on notice. Present — Peck, P. J., Callahan, Van Voorhis and Breitel, JJ.

—Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed June 2, 1997, which ruled that claimant’s psychiatric condition was not barred under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28. On August 5, 1987, claimant sustained injuries while working as a dietary aide as a result of being stuck in the finger with a used hypodermic needle. Following an award of workers’ compensation benefits to claimant based upon a finding that she sustained a s

—Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed June 2, 1997, which ruled that claimant’s psychiatric condition was not barred under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28. On August 5, 1987, claimant sustained injuries while working as a dietary aide as a result of being stuck in the finger with a used hypodermic needle. Following an award of workers’ compensation benefits to claimant based upon a finding that she sustained a s

Action by plaintiff wife to recover damages for personal injuries suffered when she boarded the appellant’s bus, and by her husband to recover for expenses and loss of services. Judgment, entered on verdicts in favor of plaintiffs, reversed on the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event, unless within ten days after the entry of the order hereon plaintiffs stipulate to reduce the amounts of their verdicts from $11,000 and $

OPINION OF THE COURT Nardelli, J. In August 1995, structural rehabilitation work began on the 59th Street Bridge (the bridge), pursuant to a contract between the City of New York and Grow-Perini, a joint venture. The work involved the outer roadways and the north and south sides of the bridge, which spans the East River between New York and Queens Counties. Plaintiff DuWayne Kyle is an

Knight v City of New York (2025 NY Slip Op 02550) Knight v City of New York 2025 NY Slip Op 02550 Decided on April 29, 2025 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law §

Giuntini v City of New York (2024 NY Slip Op 01797) Giuntini v City of New York 2024 NY Slip Op 01797 Decided on April 3, 2024 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law