Search for: "Kaufman v. Kaufman"
Results 361 - 380
of 612
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Nov 2008, 11:34 am
Thomas facility was not included under the definition of working capital (see Held v Kaufman, 91 NY2d 425, 431-432 [1998]). [read post]
11 Dec 2019, 4:31 am
Plaintiff’s claim for breach of fiduciary duty was also properly dismissed as untimely pursuant to the applicable three-year statute of limitations because plaintiff sought only money damages and not equitable relief (see Kaufman v Cohen, 307 AD2d 113, 118 [1st Dept 2003]). [read post]
29 Nov 2021, 4:32 am
The breach of fiduciary duty cause of action based on defendants’ retention of the funds held in escrow must be dismissed as duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action (see William Kaufman Org. v Graham & James, 269 AD2d 171, 173 [1st Dept 2000]). [read post]
7 Oct 2020, 8:32 am
On the second day of the Supreme Court’s new term, the justices heard arguments in Rutledge v. [read post]
26 Feb 2024, 6:44 am
Wexler & Kaufman, 2023 WL 8756986 (S.D.N.Y. [read post]
15 Dec 2023, 5:56 am
(Freeman v Brecher, 155AD3d 453,454 [1st Dept 2017], citing Kaminsky v Herrick, Feinstein LLP, 59 AD3d 1, 13 [1st Dept 2008]; see also Kaufman v Maritt Hock Hamroff, LLP, 192 AD3d 1092, 1093 [2d Dept 2021] [“Relief pursuant to Judiciary Law S 487 ‘is not given lightly’ and requires a showing of ‘egregious conduct or chronic and extreme pattern of behavior on the part of defendant attorneys’.]) [read post]
4 Aug 2015, 5:42 pm
Employees’ Retirement System of Government of the V.I. v. [read post]
5 May 2010, 10:20 am
Trading v. [read post]
16 Aug 2011, 3:58 pm
Kaufman, 379 Pa. [read post]
11 May 2018, 4:48 pm
The Dallas Morning News v. [read post]
12 Sep 2017, 4:00 am
The doctrine of collateral estoppel has two requirements: (1) “the identical issue necessarily must have been decided in the prior action and be decisive of the present action,” and (2) “the party to be precluded from relitigating the issue must have had a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior determination” (Kaufman v Eli Lilly & Co., 65 NY2d 449, 455 [1985]; see Ackman v Haberer, 111 AD3d 1378, 1379 [2013]). [read post]
7 Jul 2010, 3:28 am
Since the issue was actually and necessarily decided in the arbitration, in which CISEF had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue, CISEF and the other plaintiffs, who are admittedly in privity with it, are precluded from relitigating it herein (see Kaufman v Eli Lilly & Co., 65 NY2d 449, 455 [1985]; Active Media Servs., Inc. v Grant Prideco, Inc., 35 AD3d 165 [2006]). [read post]
8 Dec 2007, 11:21 am
The court dismissed the claim, with leave to amend and refile it spelling out his claim more clearly.In Kaufman v. [read post]
10 Dec 2010, 1:15 pm
Citations State Contract Law: Kaufman v. [read post]
13 Feb 2017, 5:01 am
In the EEOC guidance on the issue, the EEOC cites Kaufman v. [read post]
5 Mar 2021, 11:17 am
Kaufman, 862 F.2d 236 (9th Cir. 1988)(assault); Fesler v. [read post]
14 Nov 2016, 8:51 am
Supporting its recalculation, the Second Department cited only its decision in Kaufman v. [read post]
11 Dec 2018, 11:18 am
Kaufman’s personal and professional qualifications. [read post]
3 Mar 2010, 5:25 am
To view a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use Kaufman v. [read post]
6 Feb 2019, 2:59 am
Seventh Circuit rules against “disparate impact” age discrimination claims for job applicants, and a Forbes columnist writes as if it had decided to abolish disparate treatment claims for them as well [my Twitter thread on botched coverage of Kleber v. [read post]
