Search for: "Alvarez v. City of New York"
Results 21 - 40
of 83
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Dec 2017, 11:28 am
In their petition, they argued that the disclosure in this case drowns out other ad copy because the law could be interpreted to require that up to 13 different translations be included, and they distinguished this law from the one in New York City because the New York ordinance did not require extensive translations. [read post]
22 Oct 2019, 4:35 am
No. 181 [Resko Aff in Opp] if 16] [citing, inter alia, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). [read post]
13 May 2019, 4:12 am
What could be more New York than a case about real estate and parking? [read post]
22 Oct 2013, 11:01 am
Co. v New York Univ. [read post]
16 Jul 2010, 3:34 am
While the DeCaro defendants contend that a rescission defense based on unilateral mistake would not have been successful in the underlying action for specific performance, specific performance may be denied based on unilateral mistake [*4]where the other party must have been aware of the mistake (see Da Silva v Musso, 53 NY2d 543, 548; Sheridan Drive-In v State of New York, 16 AD2d 400, 405; Harper, Inc. v City of Newburgh, 159 App Div 695,… [read post]
19 Oct 2011, 6:33 am
Finally, at the Opinionator blog of the New York Times, Stanley Fish dissects the issues in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. [read post]
25 Mar 2015, 4:12 am
In Kiobel, the Court further held that a company’s “mere corporate presence” (e.g., being listed on the NYSE or having a public relations office in New York City) was insufficient to overcome the presumption against extraterritoriality. [read post]
16 Sep 2017, 6:55 am
Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Phillips v Joseph Kantor & Co., 31 NY2d 307, 311 [1972]). [read post]
22 Nov 2011, 3:03 am
While the DeCaro defendants contend that a rescission defense based on unilateral mistake would not have been successful in the underlying action for specific performance, specific performance may be denied based on unilateral mistake [*4]where the other party must have been aware of the mistake (see Da Silva v Musso, 53 NY2d 543, 548; Sheridan Drive-In v State of New York, 16 AD2d 400, 405; Harper, Inc. v City of Newburgh, 159 App Div 695,… [read post]
12 Dec 2013, 7:20 am
EME Homer City Generation and Environmental Protection Agency v. [read post]
8 Sep 2013, 7:29 pm
If the moving party meets his burden, the party opposing the motion must produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of a material issue of fact that would require a trial as held in the analogous case of Zuckerman v City of New York. [read post]
26 Jul 2014, 5:03 pm
Marquan M., 2014 WL 2931482 (Court of Appeals of New York 2014). [read post]
26 Jul 2012, 7:21 am
Coverage comes from The City Room Blog of The New York Times and Thomson Reuters. [read post]
5 Sep 2013, 7:30 pm
It was also established in Winegrad v New York Univ. [read post]
1 Mar 2011, 11:52 am
City of New York, 559 U. [read post]
10 Dec 2015, 2:00 pm
The top 3 finalists from the Grand Moot will then have the honor of competing in the New York City Bar’s National Moot Court Competition, and the fourth finalist will compete at the prestigious Dean Jerome Prince Evidence Moot Court Competition. [read post]
12 Dec 2011, 11:17 am
New York Times Co. v. [read post]
13 Apr 2020, 3:21 am
The New York Appellate Division, Third Department, agreed with the defense. [read post]
4 Dec 2013, 6:31 am
” New York v. [read post]
