Search for: "Wilinski v. 334 E. 92nd Hous. Dev. Fund Corp."
Results 1 - 7
of 7
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Oct 2011, 12:12 pm
Last year, we highlighted the First Department's decision in Wilinski v. 334 E. 92nd Hous. [read post]
2 Mar 2012, 9:50 am
This case is part of a trend following The Court of Appeals decision in Wilinski v 334 E. 92nd Hous. [read post]
28 Jul 2010, 9:12 pm
In Wilinski v. 334 E. 92nd Hous. [read post]
27 Jul 2010, 2:27 pm
The following cases have been granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by the First Department: Wilinski v. 334 E. 92nd Hous. [read post]
19 Sep 2010, 5:44 pm
; Wilinski v. 334 E. 92nd Hous. [read post]
19 Feb 2012, 3:41 pm
The elevation differential cannot be considered de minimis when the weight of the object being hoisted is capable of generating an extreme amount of force, even though it only traveled a short distance (see Runner v New York Stock Exch., Inc., 13 NY3d 599 [2009]; see also Wilinski v 334 E. 92nd Hous. [read post]
22 Nov 2011, 5:48 pm
In any event in support of the majority opinion Judge Pigott relied upon the most recent 240(1) decision by the Court in which he authored the dissent; "In Wilinski v 334 E. 92nd Hous. [read post]
