Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

Cal v. n E. THOMAS, Respondent,

Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York City (Patrick J. Lawless of counsel), for appellant. Burns & Harris, New York City (Blake G. Goldfarb of counsel), for respondent.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, with costs, case remitted to the Appellate Division, First Department, for consideration of issues raised but not determined on the appeal to that court, and certified question answered in the negative. The allegations in the notice of claim were not sufficient to put defendant on notice of the allegations in the bill of particulars concerning the handrail. Chief Judge LIPPMAN and Judges READ, PIGOTT, RIVERA, ABDUS–SALAAM, STEIN and FAHEY concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

Thomas v.
(Jun 4, 2015)