Search for: "Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP"
Results 1 - 15
of 15
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Jan 2019, 11:41 am
COMMERCIAL PROPERTY – BUSINESS INCOME LOSS CLAIM – "DEPENDENT PROPERTY" Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP v. [read post]
18 Feb 2014, 6:13 am
The story Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP (hereinafter C & S), is a law firm engaged in the... [read post]
15 Oct 2012, 11:48 am
(aka Unifund CCR Partners) Debt Collection Law Firms CACH, LLC/CACV, LLC/Collect America Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP Eltman, Eltman & Cooper, P.C. [read post]
27 Aug 2012, 7:48 am
Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP, 2010 WL 1405578 [W.D.N.Y. [read post]
6 Aug 2012, 7:58 am
MCM's counsel for collection of the debt was Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP ("Cohen"). [read post]
6 Aug 2012, 7:58 am
MCM's counsel for collection of the debt was Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP ("Cohen"). [read post]
28 Jun 2012, 8:32 am
In a decision dated June 19, 2012, the United States District Court for the Western District of New York granted consumer plaintiff, Michael Hallmark, leave to amend a complaint he had filed in October 2011 against Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP and Midland Funding, LLP for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). [read post]
22 Jun 2012, 1:23 pm
In this case, Shepherd v Law Offices of Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP, Ms. [read post]
3 Apr 2012, 6:57 am
Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP, 11 civ 1037, S.D.N.Y. [read post]
3 Apr 2012, 6:57 am
Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP, 11 civ 1037, S.D.N.Y. [read post]
11 Jan 2012, 2:18 pm
Cohen & Slamowitz disregarded his initial plea to stop the garnishment based on his complete lack of notice and awareness. [read post]
10 Jan 2012, 2:57 am
Law Offices of Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP, 668 F. [read post]
28 Dec 2011, 11:27 am
Palisades, through its attorneys, Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP, sued him and secured a default judgment against him anyway. [read post]
8 Apr 2011, 2:38 pm
Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP, No. 10-424, 2011 WL 612887 (C.A.2 (N.Y.) 2011). [read post]
27 Aug 2009, 1:31 pm
Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP, No. 08-1669 In an action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claiming that defendants illegally attempted to collect a debt because they were not licensed to do so in New York, the Court of Appeals certifies the following questions to the New York Court of Appeals: 1) whether defendant [...] [read post]