Search for: "Calle v. York Hosp." Results 1 - 20 of 69
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Sep 2010, 2:49 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
That rule is not to be found in, and does not seem in the least to be suggested by, either of the two decisions cited by the Second Department in Carvalho (see McDermott v Manhattan Eye, Ear & Throat Hosp., 15 NY2d 20, 27 [1964]; Johnson v New York City Health & Hosps. [read post]
4 Jan 2016, 7:46 am by Law Offices of Jeffrey S. Glassman
Nassau Communities Hosp., December 16, 2015, New York Court of Appeals More Blog Entries:Summer Swimming Pool Safety in New England, May 15, 2014, Boston Personal Injury Lawyer Blog The post Davis v. [read post]
23 Jun 2021, 5:23 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Nor did plaintiff demonstrate that she is entitled to a directed verdict, given the compelling evidence in favor of the defendant in the underlying medical malpractice action (see Warren v New York Presbyt. [read post]
19 Jun 2018, 6:30 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
Notably, there is no evidence in the record that the accommodation cost defendant any money at all, or otherwise represented any sort of undue hardship on defendant as that term is defined in the statute (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-102[18][a]-[d]; Jacobsen v New York City Health & Hosps. [read post]
2 Feb 2011, 11:38 am
CL08-2018 in Circuit Court for York County and Poquoson, Virginia. [read post]
26 Jan 2023, 5:45 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
Wrote a unanimous panel of the Appellate Division, First Department court in reinstating Chontay Kirby’s first and only cause of action for discrimination in her 11-page complaint, “Although plaintiff’s first cause of action is labeled as one for ‘hostile workplace,’” the lower court “was not bound by that designation and plaintiff has sufficiently stated a cause of action for employment discrimination under both the New York State and New… [read post]
20 Dec 2009, 6:06 pm
In affirming the denial of plaintiff's motion, the Second Department ruled that plaintiff had not established the actual cash value of her loss, which she was required to do since the fire damage had not been repaired: Contrary to the plaintiff's contentions, the Supreme Court properly denied her motion for summary judgment on the complaint because she failed to meet her initial burden of establishing her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v… [read post]
2 Nov 2021, 4:16 am by SHG
Hosp., 300 AD2d 592, 592 [2d Dept 2002]). [read post]