Search for: "164 REALTY LLC"
Results 1 - 14
of 14
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Jan 2014, 11:42 am
In 100 Paterson Realty LLC v. [read post]
12 Jun 2023, 3:53 am
Realty, LLC v Norris, McLaughlin, & Marcus, P.C. 2023 NY Slip Op 31851(U) June 2, 2023 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 155004/2022 Judge: Lori S. [read post]
14 Jan 2019, 11:43 am
” CoStar Realty Information, Inc. v. [read post]
7 Aug 2019, 4:17 am
Because on a motion to dismiss, the court must accord the plaintiff “the benefit of every possible favorable inference” (Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY 2d 633, 634 [1976]) and deny the motion where the documentary evidence does not “utterly refute” the claim (McCully v Jersey Partners, Inc., 60 AD 3d 562 [1st Dept 2009]), plaintiffs’ claim of continuous representation by Herrick survives and defendants’ statute of limitations… [read post]
9 Sep 2019, 4:13 am
St., LLC, 135 AD3d 809, 810 [2016]; McCurdy v KYMA Holdings, LLC, 109 AD3d 799, 799 [2013]; Smith v Christ’s First Presbyt. [read post]
12 Apr 2019, 4:26 am
Assn., 164 AD3d 145, 156 [2d Dept 2018]; Mizrahi v US Bank, Natl. [read post]
1 Dec 2011, 1:12 pm
Gallenthin Realty Dev., Inc. v. [read post]
31 Dec 2018, 3:56 am
Pokoik v Norsel Realties, 159 AD3d 459 [1st Dept 2018]. [read post]
28 Jun 2019, 4:05 am
Realty, LLC v Mavrelis, 167 AD3d 684, 685; Landa v Blocker, 87 AD3d 719, 722; Scartozzi v Potruch, 72 AD3d 787, 788). [read post]
28 Jun 2019, 4:05 am
Realty, LLC v Mavrelis, 167 AD3d 684, 685; Landa v Blocker, 87 AD3d 719, 722; Scartozzi v Potruch, 72 AD3d 787, 788). [read post]
6 Oct 2021, 5:26 am
., PLLC, 164 AD3d 756, 758 [2018]). [read post]
28 Sep 2017, 6:43 am
Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656, 661 (Tex. 2005). [read post]
20 Mar 2024, 11:24 am
Wildwood of Lubbock, LLC, No. 5:19-CV-164-H, 2020 WL 10458628, at *5 (N.D. [read post]
20 Feb 2019, 2:13 pm
Grove Family, LLC,2 City of Novi v Robert Adell Children’s Funded Trust,3 and Township of Grosse Ile v Grosse Ile Bridge Co.4 Last, the UCPA (the procedural statute applicable to all condemnation actions in Michigan) provides that a condemning agency’s finding of necessity will only be reversed for “abuse of discretion, error of law, or fraud. [read post]
