Introduction This guide's purpose is to aid practitioners and law students in researching New York civil practice. Library of Congress Subject Headings When researching in a law library catalog, use these subject headings or derivations of these subject headings to identify New York civil litigation resources.
Civil Procedure New York State. Pre-trial Procedure New York State. New York State Dept. State Div. Read Now ». New York , U. People v. Robinson, P. Dinkins, F. Superior Court , 51 Cal. Island[s] Is. Judicial Jud. Junction Junc. Junior Jr.
Liability Liab. Library Lib. Lighting Light. Limited Ltd. Limited Liability Company L. Litigation Litig.
Lumber Lbr. Machine[ry] Mach. Magazine Mag. Management Mgt. Manager Mgr. Manufacturer Mfr. Manufacturing Mfg. Marine, Maritime, Marina Mar. Market Mkt. Marketing Mktg. Mechanic, Mechanical Mech. Medical Med. Meeting Mtg. Memorial Mem. Merchandise Mdse. Methodist Episcopal M. Methodist Reformed M. Metropolitan Metro. Mineral, Mining Min. Mortgage Mtge.
Mountain Mtn. Municipal Mun. Mutual Mut. Naamloze Vennootschap N. National Natl. National Association N. Naval, Navigation Nav. North[ern] N. Number No. Office Off. Optical, Optician Opt. Orchestra Orch. Organi[z,s]ation, Organi[z,s]ing Org. Pacific Pac. Pharmaceutical, Pharmacy Pharm. Philadelphia Phila. Presbyterian Presbyt. Preservation Preserv. Printing Print. Product[ion] Prod. Professional Corporation PC or P. Protestant Prot.
Public Pub. Purchasing Purch. Railroad R. Railway Ry. Rapid Transit R. Recording Rec. Refining Ref. Reformed Refm. Refrigerat[ing, ion] Refrig. Reinsurance Reins. Restaurant Rest. River Riv. Road Rd. Roman Catholic R. Route Rte. Saint St. Savings Sav. School Sch. Securit[y, ies] Sec.
Service Serv. Society Socy. South[ern] S. Square Sq. Standard Std. Station Sta. Steamship[s] S. Storage Stor. Street St. Superintendent Supt. Surety Sur. System[s] Sys. Techn[ical, ology, ologies] Tech. Tele[gram, graph, phone, vision] Tel. Telecommunication[s] Telecom. Terminal Term. Theatrical Theat. Theological Theol. Title Tit. Township Twp. Transit Tr.
Transport[ation] Transp. Treasurer Treas. Tribunal Trib. Unitarian Unit. University Univ. Utilit[y, ies] Util. Valley Val. Vehicle Veh. Vicinity Vic. Village Vil. West[ern] W. New York B. Federal C. Other Reports D. Public Domain Citation A.
A public domain citation is assigned by the court or the Reporter of Decisions and is not associated with a particular vendor or a particular medium of publication. The citation formats adopted by these jurisdictions are listed below and the style rule governing these citations is found in section 2.
Supplementary Pamphlet Supp Pamph transcript tr videlicet viz. Current New York Statutes B. Federal Statutes Use abbreviated form within parentheses. Either full or abbreviated form may be used in running text. Variations may be required in certain titles. Cindy L. Ivy L. La Grove , Respondent. Immediate , Deceased, Appellant, v St. Spindler , Respondent. John's Queens Hosp. In the Matter of Jessica M.
Karen M. In the Matter of the Custody of Judy G. Benjamin G. United Liverpool Faculty Assn. Duffy et al. In the Matter of David K. Wong , Respondent, v Edward J. Mahoney et al. Marcy, Jr. Phase 1, Staten Is. Bluebelt Sys. Newark Grange No. Miller Facilities Corporation et al. Wargold , Also Known as Susan Serlin. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company. Roger Heasley , Appellant; Hewlett Gibson et al. Rupert White , Respondent. Radiant Gems and Minerals, Inc.
Claim No. Jones , Respondent. Goldman et al. Robert G. Lamb, Jr. Riverside Avenue Corporation , Appellant. In the Matter of Omnicon Group Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation.
Gary Otterbach et al. Shareholder Derivative Litig. Phoebe D. James T. Towne, Jr. Biscone , Respondent. Biscone In the Matter of Michael V. DeSantis, Sr. Commissioner of N. State Off. State Commission on Judicial Conduct , Respondent. Warren County Attorney , Respondent. LLC Mega Constr.
Azilda A. Sandy G. Hoexter, D. Rubin, D. Enviro Express, Inc. De Sanchez. Ghee , Appellant, v County of Monroe et al.
Neuman et al. Weiss , as President of the Welco Dress Co. And Another Action. Francine Heller et al. Encore of Hicksville, Inc. Kadin, Inc. Joseph J. Blake and Associates, Inc. And a Fourth-Party Action. Weinberg , as Grantor. Smith et al. In the Matter of H. Earl Fullilove et al. Roy Psaty , Deceased, et al. Yudell Realty, Inc.
Harnett , as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent. Posner , Appellant. Howard v Warden of Rikers Is. Workers' Compensation Board , Respondent. Luis F. Plaintiff Luis F. Ortiz was injured while engaged in demolition work at an apartment building being renovated in Brooklyn. Ortiz and his coworkers were taking debris from the building and placing it in a dumpster outside. According to Ortiz, the dumpster was about six feet high, eight feet wide, and 14 feet long.
The ledge at the top of the dumpster was about eight inches in width. After several hours of work, the dumpster was filling up, and Ortiz and his colleagues climbed up it, using footholds built into the side, and began to rearrange the debris inside to make more room.
It started to rain, making the surface of the dumpster slippery. Ortiz was injured when, while holding a wooden beam and standing at the top of the dumpster, with at least one foot on the narrow ledge, he lost his balance and fell to the ground. Defendants moved for summary judgment as to all of plaintiff's Labor Law claims.
In his affidavit in support of his cross motion and in opposition to defendants' motion, Ortiz stated that the task he was instructed to carry out required him to stand on the eight-inch ledge while placing heavy debris in open areas of the dumpster. In his deposition testimony, Ortiz recalled that he had one foot on the ledge and one foot on the garbage in the dumpster.
In his affidavit in opposition to defendants' motion and in support of his cross motion, Ortiz stated that both feet were on the ledge. Ortiz challenged the dismissal of his section 1 cause of action, and the denial of his cross motion on that claim. The Appellate Division affirmed, simultaneously granting Ortiz leave to appeal to this Court and certifying the question whether its order was properly made.
Defendants cite Toefer v Long Is. However, the present case, with the facts considered in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, is distinguishable from Toefer. Ortiz's particular task of rearranging the demolition debris and placing additional debris in the dumpster, as he describes it, required him to stand at the top of the dumpster, six feet above the ground, with at least one foot perched on an eight-inch ledge.
Moreover, defendants failed to adduce any evidence demonstrating that being in a precarious position such as this was not necessary to the task. Nor do defendants demonstrate that no safety device of the kind enumerated in section 1 would have prevented his fall. On this record, therefore, we cannot say as a matter of law that equipment of the kind enumerated in section 1 was not necessary to guard plaintiff from the risk of falling from the top of the dumpster. Consequently, defendants have not demonstrated entitlement to summary judgment.
However, we agree with defendants that Ortiz's cross motion for summary judgment was properly denied. To recover under section 1 , Ortiz must establish that he stood on or near the ledge at the top of the dumpster because it was necessary to do so in order to carry out the task he had been given. While that assertion is enough, in the context of this case and without contradictory evidence from defendants, for plaintiff to ward off summary judgment, it is not sufficient by itself for plaintiff to win summary judgment.
Moreover, to prevail on summary judgment, plaintiff must establish that there is a safety device of the kind enumerated in section 1 that could have prevented his fall, because "liability is contingent upon. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to defendants, as we must when we consider plaintiff's summary judgment motion, a question of fact remains regarding whether the task Ortiz was expected to perform created an elevation-related risk of the kind that the safety devices listed in section 1 shield workers from.
Order modified, etc. See Broggy v Rockefeller Group, Inc. Narducci v Manhasset Bay Assoc. It is a model intended only to illustrate the rules for drafting an opinion in the citational footnote style.
General Rules for Formulating Summaries 1. Accuracy — A summary of an appellate case should be factually and legally accurate. It should faithfully track the jurisdictional predicate and procedural posture of the appeal. It will typically comprise more than one sentence and should be formulated with an emphasis on concision and clarity. Tense — Summaries of appeals should be written in the past tense. Verification — A summary should be verified against the record on appeal whenever possible.
Certain courts provide jurisdictional statements that resemble summaries. These jurisdictional statements are not part of the opinion itself and are not published as part of the opinion. They may be used as a basis for formulating a summary. A summary should, however, be composed in accordance with the Law Reporting Bureau's formulation rules.
Consistency — A summary should be consistent with the description of the appeal contained in the opinion and with the court's decretal or ordering paragraph.
Place the name of the judge or justice in parentheses following the name of the court. Structure — The first sentence of a summary contains the type of cause appeal, proceeding, cross appeals, etc. When the opinion involves an original proceeding in that court, the first sentence may also contain a statement of the nature of the proceeding. The second and any other sentences contain the balance of the information that summaries traditionally have contained, including relevant decretal portions of the appealable paper and of any orders or judgments brought up for review.
Criminal Cases in General — Summaries in criminal cases generally should be formulated in accordance with the following templates: Court of Appeals Cases appeal from an intermediate appellate court : "[First sentence. See Appendix 8 A 8. Shipping and handling fees are not include in the grand total price. After Order Window,all Updates will be automatically shipped to subscriber with an invoice at the then-current grand total price on a semi annual or annual basis as the Updates become available.
Subscriber can expect a price increase over the current retail price. The retail price does not and will not include shipping and handling. Subscriber are advised of the number of updates that were made to the particular Publication the prior year. The number of Updates may vary due to developments in the law and other publishing issues,but Subscriber may use use this as a rough estimate of future shipments.
Subscribers may call Customer Support at for additional information on update frequency and price. All shipments may be returned, at subscribers expense, for full credit of the grand total price within 30 days of receipt. Return of a shipment, other than the initial purchase, will not cancel subscribers' subscription. Print Terms and Conditions. View a sample of this title using the ReadNow feature. This convenient softbound manual is designed specifically for courtroom use and offers judges and practitioners many trial-tested features that not only provide fast, accurate information for evidentiary questions, but also guide you to the underlying authorities and secondary sources.
New York Evidence Courtroom Manual includes many convenient features ideal for courtroom application, including:.
Click here for more information about LexisNexis eBooks. David M.
0コメント