Search for: "MATTER OF STATE OF NY v. King" Results 201 - 220 of 251
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Feb 2014, 3:34 am by Peter Mahler
Matter of Lowbet Realty Corp., 2014 NY Slip Op 24041 [Sup Ct, Kings County Feb. 18, 2014]. 973 Realty’s cross claim asserted that, in the event the court rescinds the sale under § 1114, it would be entitled to indemnification and/or contribution from the property manager for its financial losses, including the $1.6 million purchase price, stemming from Shareholder A’s allegations that the property manager facilitated his wife’s fraud. [read post]
1 Nov 2023, 5:53 am by John Elwood
The court did, however, deny review in one case that had been relisted three times – King v. [read post]
13 May 2024, 4:50 am by Franklin C. McRoberts
But a recent decision by Kings County Commercial Division Justice Leon Ruchelsman, Kordonsky v Brudoley, Decision and Order [Sup Ct, Kings County Mar. 26, 2024]), highlights some of the shortcomings of the intervention procedure for unnamed owners in derivative cases. [read post]
29 Sep 2024, 4:16 am by jonathanturley
Lebowitz repeated false claims about the Court’s ruling on presidential immunity, stating that the decision makes the president a “king” who “can do whatever you want. [read post]
18 Sep 2014, 4:31 am by SHG
The case helped bring an end to the death penalty in New York and was cited by the United States Supreme Court in the 1966 Miranda v. [read post]
16 Jan 2012, 3:00 am by Peter A. Mahler
Cohen, 2012 NY Slip Op 50030(U) (Sup Ct Kings County Jan. 12, 2012), decided last week by Brooklyn Commercial Division Justice Carolyn E. [read post]
29 May 2012, 3:00 am by Peter A. Mahler
If you answered these questions "no," you'll take comfort in a decision issued last week by Kings County Commercial Division Justice David Schmidt in a case called Varveris v. [read post]
3 Jun 2024, 4:31 am by Franklin C. McRoberts
In Kefalas v Pappas (___ AD3d ___, 2024 NY Slip Op 01912 [2d Dept Apr. 10, 2024]), the Court considered both of these questions, including the intriguing question of whether one can form an enforceable joint venture even though the alleged venture’s affairs are handled in separate entities acting as alleged “mere conduits. [read post]