Search for: "Pludeman v Northern Leasing Sys."
Results 1 - 7
of 7
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Nov 2008, 1:25 pm
Northern Leasing Sys., Inc. [read post]
21 Feb 2012, 3:17 am
"Plaintiff's conclusory allegations that his ex-wife, Clements, and her divorce attorney, Hayes, who also represented plaintiff in the sale of the couple's home, defrauded plaintiff out of his share of the proceeds of that sale, are insufficient to state a cause of action sounding in fraud and breach of trust (see CPLR 3016; see generally Pludeman v Northern Leasing Sys., Inc., 10 NY3d 486, 492 [2008]). [read post]
3 May 2018, 3:54 am
The facts, as pleaded, are “sufficient to permit a reasonable inference of the alleged [fraudulent] conduct” (Pludeman v Northern Leasing Sys., Inc., 10 NY3d 486, 492 [2008]). [read post]
26 Feb 2019, 4:23 am
However, the requirements of CPLR 3016(b) ” may be met when the facts are sufficient to permit a reasonable inference of the alleged conduct'” (Sargiss v Magarelli, 12 NY3d 527, 531, quoting Pludeman v Northern Leasing Sys., Inc., 10 NY3d 486, 492). [read post]
6 Oct 2011, 3:06 am
Contrary to the attorneys' contention, that cause of action was pleaded with sufficient specificity (see CPLR [*3]3016[b]; Pludeman v Northern Leasing Sys., Inc., 10 NY3d 486, 492; PDK Labs v Krape, 277 AD2d 211), and the attorneys' documentary evidence failed to "resolve[] all factual issues as a matter of law, and conclusively dispose[] of the plaintiff's claim" (Brunot v Eisenberger & Co., 266 AD2d 421,… [read post]
14 Jun 2010, 2:39 am
Additionally, the assertions in the complaint permit a reasonable inference of the alleged conduct (see Pludeman v Northern Leasing Sys., Inc., 10 NY3d 486, 492), and the complaint is otherwise "sufficient to advise [Levinson] of the incidents complained of" (Union State Bank v Weiss, 65 AD3d 584, 585; see CPLR 3116[b]). [read post]
15 Apr 2022, 3:55 am
“However, the pleading requirements of CPLR 3016(b) may be met when the facts are sufficient to permit a reasonable inference of the alleged conduct” (Berkovits v Berkovits, 190 AD3d 911, 915; see Pludeman v Northern Leasing Sys., Inc., 10 NY3d 486, 492). [read post]
