Search for: "Gilberg"
Results 1 - 20
of 31
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 May 2024, 3:58 am
” “A cause of action alleging a violation of Judiciary Law § 487 “requires, among other things, an act of deceit by an attorney, with intent to deceive the court or any party” (Shaffer v Gilberg, 125 AD3d 632, 636 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Cordell Marble Falls, LLC v Kelly, 191 AD3d 760, 762). [read post]
4 Oct 2023, 4:29 am
Here, the factual allegations in the complaint, even as amplified by the plaintiffs’ evidentiary submissions in opposition to the defendants’ motion, were insufficient to establish that the defendants acted with intent to deceive the plaintiffs or the court (see Cordell Marble Falls, LLC v Kelly, 191 AD3d at 762; Michalic v Klat, 128 AD2d 505, 506; Shaffer v Gilberg, 125 AD3d 632, 636). [read post]
29 Mar 2023, 3:24 am
Even ignoring the foregoing, the complaint’s allegations regarding Liu’s purportedly deceptive acts “are conclusory and factually insufficient” (Shaffer v Gilberg, 125 AD3d 632, 635-36 [2d Dept 2015] [internal citations omitted]). [read post]
15 Sep 2021, 4:01 am
In Cordell Marble Falls, LLC v Kelly 2021 NY Slip Op 00833 [191 AD3d 760] February 10, 2021 Appellate Division, Second Department, the Court writes: “Under Judiciary Law § 487 (1), an attorney who “[i]s guilty of any deceit or collusion, or consents to any deceit or collusion, with intent to deceive the court or any party” is liable to the injured party for treble damages (see Shaffer v Gilberg, 125 AD3d 632, 636 [2015]; Curry v Dollard, 52 AD3d 642,… [read post]
18 Jun 2021, 3:04 am
Under Judiciary Law § 487 (1), an attorney who “[i]s guilty of any deceit or collusion, or consents to any deceit or collusion, with intent to deceive the court or any party” is liable to the injured party for treble damages (see Shaffer v Gilberg, 125 AD3d 632, 636 [2015]; Curry v Dollard, 52 AD3d 642, 644 [2008]). [read post]
21 Nov 2019, 3:24 pm
Employers began to rethink how they obtain authorization and retrieve background and credit checks for new employees after the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Gilberg v. [read post]
16 Apr 2019, 2:22 pm
On April 15, 2019, a California Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for the employer in an action alleging class-wide violations of the hyper-technical provisions of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).1 Following just shortly after the Ninth Circuit’s pro-employee opinion in a similar case, Gilberg v. [read post]
1 Mar 2019, 9:41 am
The court held that the disclosure required under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) can consist only of the FRCA disclosure; it can’t contain any additional information, including the disclosure required under California’s Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA) (Gilberg v. [read post]
18 Feb 2019, 12:04 pm
Gilberg successfully argued two points that prospective employers who use consumer reports should consider. [read post]
8 Feb 2019, 6:23 am
Now, in Gilberg v. [read post]
6 Feb 2019, 10:54 am
In Gilberg v. [read post]
5 Feb 2019, 12:44 pm
The Gilberg court’s opinion focused on the FCRA’s pre-background check notice requirement, one of several notice and disclosure obligations the FCRA imposes on ... [read post]
1 Feb 2019, 11:34 am
Gilberg v. [read post]
1 Feb 2019, 11:30 am
Gilberg v. [read post]
31 Jan 2019, 5:58 am
Further, while the disclosure at issue satisfied the FCRA and California’s Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA) requirements for conspicuousness, it was not clear (Gilberg v. [read post]
29 Jan 2019, 9:59 pm
In Gilberg v. [read post]
29 Jan 2019, 4:15 pm
M-I, the Ninth Circuit ruled that an employer acted “willfully” in violation of the FCRA when it included a liability waiver in its FCRA disclosure.1 On January 29, 2019, the Ninth Circuit doubled-down on its ruling, holding in Gilberg v. [read post]
26 Oct 2018, 3:47 am
Accordingly, the complaint failed to state a cause of action for violations of Judiciary Law § 487 (see Ehrenkranz v 58 MHR, LLC, 159 AD3d 872, 872; Shaffer v Gilberg, 125 AD3d 632, 636; Schiller v Bender, Burrows & Rosenthal, LLP, 116 AD3d 756, 759). [read post]
17 Jun 2017, 2:00 pm
Grace Gilberg contributed to this post. [read post]
20 Nov 2013, 6:07 am
Gilberg, Kenneth M. [read post]
