Search for: "Amalfitano v. Rosenberg"
Results 21 - 40
of 43
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Jul 2012, 2:33 am
As such, the party’s legal expenses in defending the lawsuit may be treated as the proximate result of the misrepresentation (Amalfitano v Rosenberg, 12 NY3d 8, 874 NYS2d 868 [2009]). [read post]
6 Jun 2012, 2:41 am
Amalfitano v. [read post]
10 Apr 2012, 3:15 am
Inc, v Flaum. 25 AD3d 534 (2d Dept 2006);Amalfitano v, Rosenberg, 533 F3d 117 (2d Cir 2008). [read post]
31 Jan 2012, 2:41 am
"Plaintiff stated a cause of action under Judiciary Law § 487 by alleging that defendant deceived or attempted to deceive the court with a fictitious letter addressed to him from the former licensing director of the City's Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) that stated, inter alia, that plaintiff was under a lifetime ban on owning any licenses with the TLC (see Amalfitano v Rosenberg, 12 NY3d 8, 14 [2009]). [read post]
21 Jun 2010, 6:05 am
Furthermore, the Third Dep't ruled in Amalfitano v. [read post]
24 May 2010, 3:54 am
" "The court determined that a subsequent decision of the Court of Appeals in Amalfitano v Rosenberg (12 NY3d 8) provided a reason for granting renewal, and, upon renewal, to deny that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the complaint as against Villar with respect to the Judiciary Law § 487 cause of action. [read post]
5 May 2010, 3:42 am
"Plaintiff stated a cause of action under Judiciary Law § 487 by alleging that defendant deceived or attempted to deceive the court with a fictitious letter addressed to him from the former licensing director of the City's Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) that stated, inter alia, that plaintiff was under a lifetime ban on owning any licenses with the TLC (see Amalfitano v Rosenberg, 12 NY3d 8, 14 [2009]). [read post]
22 Jan 2010, 3:27 am
" (See Amalfitano v. [read post]
14 Dec 2009, 2:43 am
" "The court determined that a subsequent decision of the Court of Appeals in Amalfitano v Rosenberg (12 NY3d 8) provided a reason for granting renewal, and, upon renewal, to deny that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the complaint as against Villar with respect to the Judiciary Law § 487 cause of action. [read post]
12 Dec 2009, 8:28 am
Legal scholarship: First Statute of Westminster [1275] is cited in attorney’s briefAmalfitano v Rosenberg, 2009 NY Slip Op 01069, Decided on February 12, 2009, Court of AppealsPrecedents and legislative history are frequently referred to in briefs and court decisions. [read post]
11 Dec 2009, 3:31 am
Tomorrow, we'll see how a motion to renew worked and how the Court of Appeals decision in Amalfitano v. [read post]
2 Dec 2009, 3:19 am
Moreover, Judiciary Law § 487 sets forth a civil cause of action that may be established by, among other things, an attorney's intent to deceive (see Amalfitano v Rosenberg, 12 NY3d 8, 14 [2009]; Scarborough v Napoli, Kaiser & Bern, LLP, 63 AD3d 1531, 1533 [2009]; Singer v Whitman & Ransom, 83 AD2d 862, 863 [1981]). [read post]
18 Sep 2009, 4:15 am
Since the Court of Appeals decided Amalfitano v. [read post]
10 Jun 2009, 4:17 am
Since the Court of Appeals decided Amalfitano v Rosenberg 12 NY3d 8 a rise in the acceptance of, and application of the statute has been seen. [read post]
2 Apr 2009, 5:24 am
Recently the Court of Appeals decided Amalfitano v. [read post]
9 Mar 2009, 4:42 am
This month's The Court of Appeals decision in Amilfatano v, Rosenberg will likely boost litigator's awareness of the statute. [read post]
19 Feb 2009, 4:35 am
Legal scholarship: First Statute of Westminster [1275] is cited in attorney's briefAmalfitano v Rosenberg, 2009 NY Slip Op 01069, Decided on February 12, 2009, Court of AppealsPrecedents and legislative history are frequently referred to in briefs and court decisions. [read post]
16 Feb 2009, 3:29 pm
In Amalfitano v. [read post]
24 Aug 2008, 12:41 am
First, in Amalfitano v. [read post]
21 Jul 2008, 9:46 am
COURT OF APPEALS, SECOND CIRCUITLegal ProfessionState High Court to Decide if Lawyer's Unsuccessful Attempted Deceit a Basis for Judiciary Law §487 Liability Amalfitano, plaintiffs-appellees v. [read post]
