Legal Opinion

Hommel v. Benshoff

New York Supreme Court

Decided October 21, 1998PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Robert Roberto, Jr., J.

*1039The motion by defendant Ronald Benshoff for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and cross motion by third-party defendant Wackenhut Security Corp. for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint are decided as follows:

Plaintiff is employed by third-party defendant Wackenhut Security Corp. (hereinafter Wackenhut) as a “horse identifier”, a job whose apparent purpose is to insure that a racehorse that runs a race is in fact the one listed on the program. This is accomplished by examining the “night eyes”, a distinctive marking/tattoo…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Morgan v. StateNew York Court of Appeals · 1997
  2. Turcotte v. FellNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
  3. Maddox v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1985
  4. Cohen v. Heritage Motor Tours, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
  5. Comeau v. WrayAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Becker v. Pleasant Valley Farms, Ltd.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
  2. Wheeler v. CouretDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2001
  3. Vendrella v. Astriab Family Ltd. PartnershipSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2014

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API