Legal Opinion
Zanki v. Cahill
New York Court of Appeals
Decided May 11, 2004PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed with costs.
The Appellate Division properly determined that plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether the alleged injuries resulted from a dangerous recurring condition of which defendant Cushman & Wakefield had actual or constructive notice.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
2Cited by10 opinions
- Raghu v. New York City Housing AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Acunia v. New York City Department of EducationAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Morgan v. Windham Realty, LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Ohadi v. Magnetic Constr. Group Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2020
- Maldonado v. New York City Housing AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.