Legal Opinion
Rubinfeld v. City of New York
New York Supreme Court
Decided November 13, 1996PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Herbert Kramer, J.
What constitutes a nondelegable duty pursuant to CPLR 1602?
The City has moved by way of posttrial motion to limit its liability to 20% of the total economic loss recovered by the plaintiff pursuant to CPLR article 16.1 Plaintiff was struck by the Odani vehicle as she crossed at an intersection that had a broken walk/don’t walk signal.
In this case of first impression, plaintiff contends that the City is not entitled to the protection accorded to a joint tortfeasor under article 16 because the maintenance of traffic signals is a nondelegable duty and…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- People v. KingNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
- Marsala v. WeinraubAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
- Detrinca v. De FillippoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
- Hill v. EdmondsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1966
- Ryan v. BeaversAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Cole v. Mandell Food Stores, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1999
- Rangolan v. County of NassauDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1999
- Faragiano v. Town of ConcordAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000