Search for: "Ferreira v City of New York" Results 1 - 15 of 15
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Mar 2022, 2:49 pm by lennyesq
*** The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has inquired whether New York’s ” ‘special duty’ requirement” applies “to claims of injury inflicted through municipal negligence” or if it applies only to claims premised upon a municipality’s negligent “failure to protect the plaintiff from an injury inflicted other than by a municipal employee” (975 F3d 255, 291 [2d Cir 2020]). [read post]
28 May 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
To succeed on a cause of action sounding in negligence, the plaintiff must establish that the defendants owed her a special duty of care (see Ferreira v City of Binghamton, 38 NY3d 298, 317; Wilson v New York City Bd. of Educ., 167 AD3d 820, 820; Destefano v City of New York, 149 AD3d 696, 697). [read post]
28 May 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
To succeed on a cause of action sounding in negligence, the plaintiff must establish that the defendants owed her a special duty of care (see Ferreira v City of Binghamton, 38 NY3d 298, 317; Wilson v New York City Bd. of Educ., 167 AD3d 820, 820; Destefano v City of New York, 149 AD3d 696, 697). [read post]
5 Oct 2020, 7:03 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
The trial court took away that verdict, and now the case has been handed off the New York Court of Appeals to decide a tricky state law question.The case is Ferreira v. [read post]
28 Mar 2022, 7:30 am by Public Employment Law Press
Wilson, dissenting, is set out in Ferreira v City of Binghamton, 2022 NY Slip Op 01953, decided on March 22, 2022. [read post]
28 Mar 2022, 7:30 am by Public Employment Law Press
Wilson, dissenting, is set out in Ferreira v City of Binghamton, 2022 NY Slip Op 01953, decided on March 22, 2022. [read post]
19 Jun 2012, 2:16 pm
The New York criminal lawyers at Crotty Saland PC represent clients accused of crimes throughout New York City and the region. [read post]
6 Dec 2021, 5:30 am by Public Employment Law Press
"Judicial review of the discharge of a probationary employee is limited to whether the determination was made in bad faith or for an improper or impermissible reason" (Matter of Petkewicz v Allers, 137 AD3d 1045, 1046 [2016] [citations omitted]; see Matter of Johnson v City of New York, 34 AD3d 484, 485 [2006]). [read post]
6 Dec 2021, 5:30 am by Public Employment Law Press
"Judicial review of the discharge of a probationary employee is limited to whether the determination was made in bad faith or for an improper or impermissible reason" (Matter of Petkewicz v Allers, 137 AD3d 1045, 1046 [2016] [citations omitted]; see Matter of Johnson v City of New York, 34 AD3d 484, 485 [2006]). [read post]