1 STATE OF NEW YORK : COURT OF CLAIMS In the Matter of the Claim of CHARLES W. SEMZOCK, - against - STATE OF NEW YORK, Claimant, MEMORANDUM OF LAW CLAIM NO JUDGE FRANK P. MILANO Defendant. Preliminary Statement This Memorandum of Law, along with the accompanying Affidavits, are respectfully submitted in support of the Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of the State of New York. For the reasons more particularly set forth below, including that the defendant did not own or control the land upon which the claimant was injured and therefore owes no duty of care to the claimant, the claim should be dismissed and the relief requested by the claimant denied in its entirety. Statement of Facts On April 22, 2007 Charles Semzock was driving his motorcycle northbound on Route 28, a County route of Saratoga County, also known as Spier Falls Road. A third-party vehicle was allegedly pulled over on a "pull-off or parking area" on County Route 28. Purportedly the thirdparty vehicle exited the area and entered the roadway northbound. The third-party vehicle pulled in front of Charles Semzock, at which time he collided with the vehicle. Charles Semzock received substantial injuries from the motorcycle accident.
2 Claimant, Charles Semzock, brought this action for personal injuries and economic loss sustained by the claimant as a result of his involvement in the motorcycle accident. Claimant alleges the accident was due to a "dangerous and defective condition created by the State of New York, including but not limited to the New York State Department of Transportation, and/or the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, its agents, servants and/or employees by the negligent designing, planning, constructing, creating, placing, installing, operating, controlling, maintaining, improving, enlarging, repairing or signing of a vehicle pulloff/parking area in or near the Moreau Lake State Park and Spier Falls Road or County Route 28 in the Town of Moreau." 1 The claim was filed on September 14, The defendant filed an answer on October 22, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on March 24, On July 30, 2008, this Court ordered that the motion was denied without prejudice pending further discovery. Since July 2008, the parties have engaged in significant discovery. Defendant has made witnesses available to claimant for examination, as well as provided hundreds of pages of documentation. Michael Greenslade was the park manager of Moreu Lake State Park at the time of the alleged accident. During his tenure, Mr. Greenslade had been to the area of the accident, generally using the "pull-off area" for the eagle surveys. 2 (Greenslade EBT page 12 lines 10-13). He testified he had never seen anyone specifically maintain or control the area. (Greenslade EBT page 14 lines 16-23; page 15 lines 1-12) During his tenure the State of New York did not 1 See, the Complaint p. 2 para Eagle surveys are surveys done of bald eagles. Mr. Greenslade testified that he participated in conducting these surveys during his tenure as Park Manager of Moreu Lake State Park. The surveys were done at numerous vantage points throughout the park and state, in order to monitor the bald eagles population. The area of the accident was one of many places Mr. Greenslade went to in order to do eagle surveys. He can recall being there on a limited number of occasions. 2
3 perform any maintenance type function on the "pull-off area" in question on Spier Falls Road (Greenslade EBT page 22 lines 20-23; page 23 line 1). Mr. Greenslade stated the State of New York did not maintain the "pull-off areas," but they might remove a tree that was blocking a roadway or pull-off, or pick up litter. (Greenslade EBT page 38 lines 18-23; page 39 lines 1-7). Mr. Greenslade further testified it is his belief the area is either County property or owned by Erie Boulevard Hydropower, LCC, as per the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) boundary lines, but he is not personally aware of the exact boundary line in the area (Greenslade EBT page 23 lines 6-23; page 24 lines 1-4; page 30 lines 19-23; page 31 line 1). Mr. Greenslade testified about the use of boundary signs. He stated "we would use them as posted signs marking the state land boundaries, and we would use survey maps that we had to do the outer boundaries of the park or some end holdings that we had. Along the roadways, they are more informational than anything else. Because there were those varying entities between FERC, the County, and everybody else, we just wanted to let people know that you were basically in state park land or driving through state park land." (Greenslade EBT page 62 lines 17-23; page 63 lines 1-4). When Mr. Coughlin continued questioning him on the placement of boundary signs, Mr. Greenslade stated "we would keep it on our side of the boundary, facing to the outside of the property." (Greenslade EBT page 63 lines 8-9). Furthermore, upon questioning by Mr. Coughlin: Q: So that if you're standing there reading the sign, if I understand correctly, you would be within state land. A: No. You would be on the other entity's land (Greenslade EBT page 66 lines 20-23; page 67 line 1). Robert W. Reinhardt, the Director of Planning for the New York State Office of Parks, 3
4 Recreation and Historic Planning (Parks) was also examined before trial. Mr. Reinhardt testified that the State of New York through Parks never defined, listed, documented or inventoried "pulloffs" along the edge of the road (Reinhardt EBT page ; page 39 lines 1-18). When the master plan refers to improving pull-offs it is not talking about the "pull-off or parking area" in question, which was never defined, listed, documented or inventoried in the master plan (Reinhardt EBT pages 38-46). 3 There may be areas where a car could pull off but they are not designated areas. (Reinhardt EBT page 60 lines 5-6). Defendant does not own, control or possess the "pull-off/parking area" where the alleged claim arose. The road where the motorcycle accident took place is a County route, Spier Falls Road or County Route 28 in the Town of Moreau. The accident location is not situated on any State Highway or roadway owned, controlled or maintained by the New York State Department of Transportation ("NYSDOT"). The accident location as described in the claim is also not the property of New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation ("Parks"). Summary Judgment Standard The standard for granting a summary judgment motion is well established. The proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case (Winegrad v. New York University Medical Center, 64 NY2d 851, 853 (1985)), and such showing must be made by producing evidentiary proof in admissible form. (Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 (1980)). Once the movant has demonstrated a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law, the burden shifts to the opposing party to submit evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to create an issue of fact 3 The master plan is looking at improving the pull offs at the boat launches and the trailheads. (page 44 lines 19-23). 4
5 or demonstrate an acceptable excuse for his failure to submit such proof (Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 (1986)). "Mere conclusions, speculation or expressions of hope are insufficient to defeat the motion." (Amatulli-v Delhi Constr. Corp., 77 NY2d 525 (1991)). Legal Argument I. The State of New York did not possess ownership or control over the site of the accident. In McGill v. Caldors, Inc., defendant's submissions in support of its motion for summary judgment showed that defendant was not in possession of the parking lot and did not otherwise have any right to maintain or control that area. (135 A.D.2d 1041, 1043 (3d Dept., 1987)) "Upon this showing, plaintiffs were required to come forward with sufficient proof in evidentiary form to demonstrate that Caldor had, or was chargeable with, control of the parking lot where plaintiff fell, or that Caldor actually created the hazard." The court in Caldors found plaintiff's affidavit "patently insufficient and purely speculative" which did not demonstrate sufficient proof of a material issue of fact (135 A.D.2d 1041, 1043; see, Dunn v. Cohoes Mem. Hosp., 112 A.D.2d 620 (3d Dept., 1985); Hasbrouck v. City of Gloversville, 102 A.D.2d 905 (3d Dept., 1984), affd. 63 N.Y.2d 916 (1984)). In the present case, defendant does not possess ownership or control over Spier Falls Road or County Route 28 in the Town of Moreau. The Spier Falls Road, or County Route 28, in the Town of Moreau, is a County road that runs through the Monreau State Park (hereinafter referred to as "the Park.") The defendant possesses ownership or control over the Park. The area where the incident allegedly took place, the "pull-off/parking area," is not property of the Park or NYSDOT. The examinations before trial of Mr. Greenslade and Mr. Reinhardt fully support the lack on control or ownership over the area, and that there was never any design, construction, 5
6 creation, repair, improvement or signage of the area itself undertaken by the defendant. This Court had previously been concerned about the "State Boundary Signs" in its order of June 30, 2008, which this Court said demonstrated a need for additional discovery on the issue of ownership or special use. Mr. Greenslade spoke about the posted signs on the boundaries of the Park property in his deposition. He stated someone looking at the signs is not on state property as they indicate the boundary. Therefore a person on the County road or the area of the accident would not be on Park property. Claimant cannot provide sufficient evidence beyond speculation that defendant was in control of, created or maintained the "pull-off/parking area." The defendant does not own, possess or control the "pull-off/parking area" in question. There is no evidence the defendant ever designed, planned, constructed, created, placed, installed, operated, controlled, maintained or had any responsibility with regard to the area where the incident allegedly took place. II. The State of New York has no legal duty of care, to warn or improve the site of the accident. a. The State of New York has no ownership, occupancy or control. Generally, liability for a dangerous condition on real property must be predicated upon ownership, occupancy, control, or special use of the property. (Millman v. Citibank, 216 A.D.2d 278 (2d Depart. 1995); see, Masterson v. Knox, 233 A.D.2d 549 (3d Depart. 1996)). The determinative question is one of possession or control. (Sullivan v. Specialty Glass Corp., 229 A.D.2d 572 (2d Depart. 1996); McGill v. Caldors, Inc., supra). "Where none of these factors are present, a party cannot be held liable for injuries caused by the allegedly defective condition." (Gover v. Mastic Beach Property Owners Ass'n, 57 A.D.3d 729 (2d Depart. 2008); see Dugue v 1818 Newkirk Mgt. Corp., 301 A.D.2d 561, 562 (2d Depart. 2003); Aversano v City of New York, 6
7 265 A.D.2d 437 (2d Depart. 1999)). As discussed supra, the defendant, State of New York did not have ownership, occupancy nor control of the area of the accident; without the required element of possession or control the question of liability fails. b. The State of New York has no right or obligation to maintain the area. In Welwood v. Association for Children With Down Syndrome, Inc., the evidentiary submissions by the defendant third-party plaintiff demonstrated that it did not have an exclusive right to possession of the parking lot, and that it had no right or obligation to maintain this area. (248 A.D.2d 708 (3d Depart. 1998)). Moreover, there was no evidence that the defendant thirdparty plaintiff created the condition which caused the injured plaintiff's accident. (Welwood, 248 A.D.2d at 708). Since the defendant third-party plaintiff owed the injured plaintiff no duty of care to maintain the parking lot, it cannot be held liable for permitting the existence of a dangerous condition (Id.; see, Masterson v. Knox, 233 A.D.2d 549 (3d Depart. 1996)(holding no duty of care where physician did not create condition, own or retain any control over parking lot, or have authority to correct condition, even though physician, his employees, and his patients had license to park in lot); Millman v. Citibank, 216 A.D.2d 278 (2d Depart. 1995); Hoberman v. Kids R Us, 187 A.D.2d 187 (1st Depart. 1993); McGill v. Caldors, Inc., supra). The defendant's lack of possession or ownership or right to control the property is directly related to a lack of a duty of care. Defendant did not create, place, install, operate, maintain, improve, enlarge, construct, alter, repair or change the "pull-off/park area" in any such way to create a duty of care. Therefore the State of New York has no duty or obligation to maintain the area. c. The State of New York has no duty to warn of a latent, dangerous condition. Ordinarily, a landowner's duty to warn of a latent, dangerous condition on his property is 7
8 a natural counterpart to his duty to maintain his property in a reasonably safe condition (Galindo v. Town of Clarkstown, 2 N.Y.3d 633, 636 (2004); see Tagle v Jakob, 97 N.Y.2d 165, 169 (2001); Basso v Miller, 40 N.Y.2d 233, 239 (1976); Soich v Farone, 307 A.D.2d 658, 659 (3d Dept 2003)). As a general matter, an owner owes no duty to warn or to protect others from a defective or dangerous condition on neighboring premises, unless the owner had created or contributed to it (see Gehler v. City of New York, 261 A.D.2d 506 (2d Dept.1999); Pensabene v. Incorporated Vil. of Val. Stream, 202 A.D.2d 486 (2d Dept.1994); Gipson v. Veley, 192 A.D.2d 826 (3d Dept.1993)). The reason for such a rule is obvious-a person who lacks ownership or control of property cannot fairly be held accountable for injuries resulting from a hazard on the property (Galindo v. Town of Clarkstown, 2 N.Y.3d 633, 636 (2004)). Generally "it would create an 'unreasonably onerous' burden to require a landowner to evaluate and warn others about a danger caused by a condition existing on neighboring land." (Galindo v. Town of Clarkstown, 305 A.D.2d 538, 539 (2d Depart. 2003)). Therefore in determining duty the court takes into consideration factors such as the reasonable expectations of parties and society generally, the proliferation of claims, the likelihood of unlimited or insurerlike liability, disproportionate risk and reparation allocation (Hamilton v. Beretta U.S.A Corp., 96 N.Y.2d 222, 232 (2001); see also, Darby v. Compagnie Natl. Air France, 96 N.Y.2d 343, 347 (2001)(duty must comport with what is socially, culturally and economically acceptable )). In the present case, the defendant does not have ownership, occupancy, control, nor any other allegations from the claim, where the incident allegedly took place. Defendant did not create the condition that allegedly caused the motorcycle accident, nor did the defendant have a duty to correct said condition. It would be unreasonable for the court to impose a duty upon the defendant. 8
9 III. Liability cannot be imposed on the State of New York in the absence of a legal duty. A finding of negligence is based only upon the breach of a legal duty. If the defendant owes no duty to the claimant in connection with the acts complained of, the action must fail. It is for the courts to determine whether any duty exists on the onset (see, Hamilton v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 96 N.Y.2d 222 (2001); Waters v. New York City Hous. Auth., 69 N.Y.2d 225 (1987)). In assessing the scope and consequences of civil responsibility, courts define the boundaries of duty to comport with what is socially, culturally and economically acceptable (Darby v. Compagnie National Air France, 96 N.Y.2d 343, 347 (2001); see, Pulka v. Edelman, 40 N.Y.2d 781, ; Tobin v. Grossman, 24 N.Y.2d 609, 619 (1969)). In order for the defendant, the State of New York, to be found negligent in this claim there must be a recognizable legal duty of care to this claimant. Without a legal duty found by this Court, the claim cannot sustain for lack of a cause of action. The defendant did not possess ownership or control over the site to establish a duty of care, as discussed supra, therefore there is no cause of action for claimant against this defendant. CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, including that the defendant did not own or control the land upon which the claimant was injured and therefore owes no duty of care to the claimant, defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law and the Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety. 9
UED ON41912013 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: - Index Number : 108435/2011 CRUMBS, MONTELL M. vs. HYDE, FRANCINE S. SEQUENCE NUMBER : 001 SUMMARY JUDGMENT Justice - The
Case 1:07-cv-00389-MJW-BNB Document 51 Filed 08/21/2008 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 07-cv-00389-MJW-BNB ERNA GANSER, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT
[* 1 ] Short Form Order NEW YORK SUPREME COURT - QUEENS COUNTY Present: HONORABLE HOWARD G. LANE IAS PART 22 Justice ----------------------------------- Index No. 8915/07 JOANNE HALSEY, Plaintiff, Motion
Office of the Comptroller v. Colonial Roofing Company, Inc. OATH Index No. 632/13, mem. dec. (Feb. 19, 2013) In prevailing wage case, contractor sought summary judgment dismissing petition due to delay
LITIGATION OF PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASES IN EXOTIC FORUMS - PUERTO RICO By Francisco J. Colón-Pagán 1 I. OVERVIEW OF PUERTO RICO LEGAL SYSTEM A. Three branches of government B. Judicial Branch 1. Supreme
STATE OF NEW YORK DIVISION OF TAX APPEALS In the Matter of the Petition : of : CHASE A. CARO : ORDER DTA NO. 826305 for Review of a Notice of Proposed Driver License : Suspension Referral under Tax Law,
CAUSE NO. 02-01125-J CHARLES DURHAM IN THE 191ST DISTRICT COURT VS. LARVAN PERAILTA DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFF S MOTION TO RECOVER EXPENSES OF PROOF TO THE HONORABLE COURT: Comes Now, Charles Durham,
?HORT FORM ORDER SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK Present: HON. ALLAN L. WINICK, Justice ROBERT WALKER, JR., Plaintiff, TRIAUIAS, PART 7 NASSAU COUNTY MOTION DATE: May II,2001 MOTION SEQUENCE: 003,004
Short Form Order NEW YORK SUPREME COURT - QUEENS COUNTY PRESENT: HON. ORIN R. KITZES PART 17 Justice --------------------------------------------------------------------x ZHORIK YUSUPOV, Plaintiff, Index
IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion) CITY OF LINCOLN V. DIAL REALTY DEVELOPMENT NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-CA-01200-COA HARVEY HALEY APPELLANT v. ANNA JURGENSON, AGELESS REMEDIES FRANCHISING, LLC, AGELESS REMEDIES MEDICAL SKINCARE AND APOTHECARY AND
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF BRONX: PART IA-3 -----------------.----------------------------------------a-ax ~YSOroANO. : Plaintiff, ALDOINOA, LSB LECTRIC CORP., and THE CITY OF NEW
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS NORMA KAKISH and RAJAIE KAKISH, Plaintiffs-Appellees, UNPUBLISHED December 29, 2005 v No. 260963 Ingham Circuit Court DOMINION OF CANADA GENERAL LC No. 04-000809-NI INSURANCE
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A12-2125 Hussen W. Butta, Appellant, vs. Mortgage
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION DIAMOND STATE INSURANCE CO., : April Term, 2000 Plaintiff, : v. : No. 0395 : NUFAB CORP.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION JAMES D. FOWLER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No.: 08-cv-2785 ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Judge Robert M. Dow,
FULTON COUNTY STATE COURT STATE OF GEORGIA JENNIFER GARRISON, vs. Plaintiff, MONTAG REALTY COMPANY, LLC d/b/a VERONA APARTMENTS, THE REALTY FUND III, L.P. and JOHN DOES 1-5, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CASE NUMBER:
ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION GUIDELINES WITH LITIGATION IN MIND Introduction The purpose of this paper is to alert the reader to concepts used in the defense of construction related lawsuits and to suggest how
================================================================= This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports. -----------------------------------------------------------------
THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION ATLANTIC STATES INSURANCE : February Term 2004 COMPANY, : Plaintiff, : No. 2642 v. : PATRICK
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS TROY COSMETIC CENTER MARKETING, L.L.C., RENAISSANCE AMBULATORY CENTER, and DR. AENEAS GUINEY, UNPUBLISHED June 1, 2006 Plaintiffs-Appellants, v No. 266909 Oakland Circuit
00 STATE OF WYOMING 0LSO-0 HOUSE BILL NO. HB0 Medical malpractice-use of expert witnesses. Sponsored by: Representative(s) Gingery A BILL for AN ACT relating to medical malpractice actions; providing for
Hong Suk Lee v Biton 2013 NY Slip Op 30666(U) April 2, 2013 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 700334/2011 Judge: Robert J. McDonald Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO BROOKE B. DEMAREE, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, Defendant-Appellee, APPEAL NO. C-090892 TRIAL NO. A-0906987
Merchant Store Inc. v Schloesser 2012 NY Slip Op 31928(U) July 17, 2012 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: 30202-2011 Judge: Emily Pines Republished from New York State Unified Court System's
Workplace Related Injuries A Discussion of the Relevant Provisions of New York State Labor Law By: WARREN S. KOSTER, ESQ. CALLAN, REGENSTREICH, KOSTER & BRADY ONE WHITEHALL STREET NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10004
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 LUZ RIVERA AND ABRIANNA RIVERA Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RONALD MANZI Appellee No. 948 EDA 2015 Appeal from the Order
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral
Form 2:40-2 Complaint Negligence, Motor Vehicle IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ## JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR [COUNTY], FLORIDA [PLAINTIFF], Plaintiff, CASE NO.: ##-##### ## ## GENERAL JURISDICTION vs. [DEFENDANT
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE September 19, 2011 Session JOSHUA N. LEE, v. LYONS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sevier County No. 2009-0263-11 Hon. Richard
FOR PUBLICATION IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS 1 1 1 1 1 COMMONWEALTH PORTS AUTHORITY, vs. DOUGLAS F. CUSHNIE, Plaintiff, Defendant. Civil Action No. 0-0 ORDER(s:
ASPECTS OF CONTRACT AND NEGLIGENCE FOR BUSINESS Lecturer: Judith Robb-Walters Lesson 8 ASPECTS OF CONTRACT AND NEGLIGENCE FOR BUSINESS LO 2: Understand principles of liability in negligence in business
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION LAW SCOTT WESCOTT, III, : Plaintiff : : vs. : No. 09-3500 : BRENDA WHITE, : Defendant : Robert G. Bauer, Esquire Richard D. Adamson,
2:09-cv-14271-LPZ-PJK Doc # 13 Filed 06/24/10 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 53 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION v. Plaintiff, CASE NO. 09-14271 HON.
Short Form Order NEW YORK SUPREME COURT - QUEENS COUNTY PRESENT: HON. ORIN R. KITZES PART 17 Justice -----------------------------------------------------------------X NC TWO, L.P., as successor in interest
Case: 5:14-cv-00136-DCR-REW Doc #: 138 Filed: 04/15/15 Page: 1 of 8 - Page ID#: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION (at Lexington GEORGE VINCENT VAUGHN, Plaintiff,
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 THE CLASSIC LIGHTING EMPORIUM, INC. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE Appellee No. 3158 EDA 2014 Appeal
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZ. R. SUP. CT. 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE STEPHEN
Document Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION In Re: ) ) TANITA M. CAIN, ) Case No. 13-04056-TOM-7 ) Debtor. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
Yip v Kit Tzing Lee Kuan Realty, Inc. 2007 NY Slip Op 32605(U) July 31, 2007 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 0028647/2004 Judge: Orin R. Kitzes Republished from New York State Unified Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-IA-00181-SCT VICKSBURG HEALTHCARE, LLC d/b/a RIVER REGION HEALTH SYSTEM v. CLARA DEES DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/22/2013 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. ISADORE W. PATRICK, JR.
SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION INFORMATION PARTIES The individual or corporation who initiates an action is known as the plaintiff. The individual or corporation against whom an action is brought is known as the
2015 IL App (1st) 141985-U No. 1-14-1985 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
RESULTS Appellate Court upholds decision that malpractice action barred September 2, 2015 The South Carolina Court of Appeals recently upheld a summary judgment obtained by David Overstreet and Mike McCall
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT CRISTOBAL COLON, Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED v. Case No.
Structure Tone, Inc. v Travelers Indem. Co. 2015 NY Slip Op 30706(U) April 29, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 159598/2014 Judge: Eileen A. Rakower Cases posted with a "30000" identifier,
2:11-cv-11155-AC-RSW Doc # 21 Filed 02/03/12 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 331 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION URSULA BROWN, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 11-11155 DELTA AIR LINES,
Vargas v City of New York 2016 NY Slip Op 30070(U) January 15, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 154323/13 Judge: Michael D. Stallman Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013
VACHON LAW FIRM Michael R. Vachon, Esq. (SBN ) 0 Via Del Campo, Suite San Diego, California Tel.: () -0 Fax: () - Attorney for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES COUNTY CENTRAL
Medical Malpractice Reform 49 This Act to contains a clause wherein the state legislature asks the state Supreme Court to require a plaintiff filing a medical liability claim to include a certificate of
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION PROVIDENCE WASHINGTON INSURANCE : December Term, 2002 COMPANY : Plaintiff, : No. 03844 v.
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STANLEY NOKIELSKI and BETHANY NOKIELSKI, UNPUBLISHED January 4, 2011 Plaintiffs, v No. 294143 Midland Circuit Court JOHN COLTON and ESTHER POLLY HOY- LC No. 08-3177-NI-L
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS KAREN JORDAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED August 19, 2014 v No. 316125 Wayne Circuit Court INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF LC No. 12-015537-NF PENNSYLVANIA Defendant-Appellee.
SHORT FORM ORDER NEW YORK SUPREME COURT : QUEENS COUNTY P R E S E N T : HON. JOSEPH P. DORSA IAS PART 12 Justice - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x CHARNETTE FERRIL, ALEXIA AGNANT and ALAIN AGNANT,
NO. 29551 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAIfI DONALD T. OKIMOTO and KUMIKO OKIMOTO, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. KURT I. UYEHARA, D.D.S., Defendant-Appellee, and JOHN DOES 1-20, MARY
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 07-348 LESTER BLACKMAN, ET AL. VERSUS BROOKSHIRE GROCERY COMPANY ************ APPEAL FROM THE CITY COURT OF ALEXANDRIA, PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 103,325,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PA JOSEPH M. LIVORNO and CAROLE A. : LIVORNO : Plaintiffs : : DOCKET NO: 09-01768 vs. : : THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE : CIVIL ACTION COMPANIES, : Scheduling
Case: 3:11-cv-00024-DCR-EBA Doc #: 57 Filed: 08/28/12 Page: 1 of 6 - Page ID#: 1060 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION AT FRANKFORT Electronically Filed KERRY HINKLE,
Chapter 4 Crimes (Review) On a separate sheet of paper, write down the answer to the following Q s; if you do not know the answer, write down the Q. 1. What is a crime? 2. There are elements of a crime.
1 0 1 MARC D. ADELMAN Attorney at Law State Bar No. Liberty Station Historic Decatur Road, Suite 00 San Diego, CA - (1) -0 Phone (1) -0 Fax Email: AdelmanMD@aol.com Attorney for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT
Garden State CLE 21 Winthrop Road Lawrenceville, New Jersey 08648 (609) 895-0046 fax- 609-895-1899 Atty2starz@aol.com Video Course Evaluation Form Attorney Name Atty ID number for Pennsylvania: Name of
SECOND DIVISION JOHNSON, P.J., ELLINGTON and MIKELL, JJ. NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BY THE COURT. September 22, 2009 In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A09A1222. WILLIAMS
Curillo v Tiago Holdings, LLC 2015 NY Slip Op 32406(U) November 19, 2015 Supreme Court, Bronx County Docket Number: 308612/2012 Judge: Betty Owen Stinson Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013
DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO 1437 Bannock Street Denver, CO 80202 Plaintiffs: JON C. COOK, an individual, and THE LUMBERYARDS DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C., a Colorado Limited Liability Company,
================================================================= This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports. -----------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION KAREN M. McSHANE, et al., FEBRUARY TERM, 2003 Plaintiffs, No. 01117 v. Control No. 070576
5.51 LEGAL MALPRACTICE (Approved 6/79) CHARGE 5.51A Page 1 of 9 A. General Duty Owing An action brought against an attorney alleging negligence in the practice of law is referred to as a malpractice action.
Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Hands Across Long Is., Inc. 2015 NY Slip Op 30100(U) January 22, 2015 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: 10-7580 Judge: Joseph A. Santorelli Cases posted with a "30000"
APPENDIX II. INTERROGATORY FORMS Form A. Uniform Interrogatories to be Answered by Plaintiff in All Personal Injury Cases (Except Medical Malpractice Cases): Superior Court All questions must be answered
Colorado s Civil Access Pilot Project and the Changing Landscape of Business Litigation On January 1, 2012, new rules approved by the Colorado Supreme Court entitled the Civil Access Pilot Project ( CAPP
Case :09-cv-00910-FB Document Filed 10/0/10 Page 1 of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION CARL DWIGHT DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-09-CA-910-FB
CHAPTER 2011-233 Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 479 An act relating to medical malpractice; creating ss. 458.3175, 459.0066,
PAGE 1 OF 5 1 (Use for claims arising on or after 1 October 2011.) The (state number) issue reads: Was the plaintiff [injured] [damaged] by the defendant s negligent performance of (corporate) (administrative)
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 13/33469 (1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED... DATE...
Case 7:12-cv-00148-HL Document 43 Filed 11/07/13 Page 1 of 11 CHRISTY LYNN WATFORD, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION v. Plaintiff, Civil Action No.
Storm Damage Arbitration Agreement ADR Systems File # Insurance Claim # x I. Parties A. xxxxx B. xxxxx II., Time and Location of the Arbitration : Time: Location: III. Rules Governing the Arbitration Each