Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Cusumano v. City of New York

New York Court of Appeals

Decided October 14, 2010No. 161Published

1Concurrence

Chief Judge Lippman (concurring).

I agree with the majority that the trial was tainted by testimony regarding New York City Administrative Code § 27-375, and therefore, a new trial is necessary to determine whether plaintiff is entitled to recovery under General Municipal Law § 205-a. Nonetheless, I disagree with the assertion that defendant-appellant City of New York did not preserve the argument that New York City Administrative Code § 27-127 is an insufficient independent predicate for section 205-a liability. The argument was made at the charge conference of the liability trial and again…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Guzman v. Haven Plaza Housing Development Fund Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1987
  2. Giuffrida v. Citibank Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 2003
  3. Williams v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 2004
  4. Mullen v. Zoebe, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1995
  5. Jones v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006

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

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

Powered by the Exa API