Search for: "Dicker v. Dicker" Results 21 - 40 of 84
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Jul 2019, 4:23 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Co. v Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, 56 AD3d 1, 11 [1st Dept 2008]). [read post]
10 Jul 2019, 7:51 am by Dan Bressler
Co. v Batista, 165 AD3d 997, 998; Doviak v Finkelstein &Partners, LLP, 90 AD3d 696, 699; Quinn v Walsh, 18 AD3d 638; Brill v Friends World Coll., 133 AD2d 729). [read post]
21 Jun 2019, 3:32 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Co. v Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, 56 AD3d 1). [read post]
11 Apr 2019, 4:20 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Even if the plaintiff had sufficiently pleaded this allegation, she “failed to allege sufficient facts to establish that the[ ] defendants intended to deceive the court” or the plaintiff (Klein v Rieff, 135 AD3d 910, 912; see Ticketmaster Corp. v Lidsky, 245 AD2d 142, 143; Thomas v Chamberlain, D’Amanda, Oppenheimer & Greenfield, 115 AD2d 999, 999-1000). [read post]
27 Feb 2019, 3:01 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Pac., LLC v Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP, 38 AD3d 34, 41-42 [2d Dept 2006], cited in Eurotech Constr. [read post]
22 Feb 2019, 4:09 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
” “”[M]embers of a limited liability company (LLC) may bring derivative suits on the LLC’s behalf” (Tzolis v Wolff, 10 NY3d 100, 102; see Jacobs v Cartalemi, 156 AD3d 605; Stack v Midwood Chayim Aruchim Dialysis Assoc., Inc., 54 AD3d 935; East Quogue Jet, LLC v East Quogue Members, LLC, 50 AD3d 1089). [read post]
19 Oct 2018, 6:08 am
Posted by Cydney Posner, Cooley LLP, on Friday, October 12, 2018 Tags: Boards of Directors, Director nominations, Proxy contests, Proxy voting, SEC, Securities regulation, Shareholder voting, Universal proxy ballots SEC Sanctions Investment Firm for Inadequate Cybersecurity and Identity Theft Prevention Policies Posted by Sabastian V. [read post]
16 Aug 2018, 3:42 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Co. v Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, 56 AD3d 1, 9 [1st Dept 2008] [citing Matter of Cooperman, 83 NY2d 465, 472 [1994]). [read post]
9 Jul 2018, 4:31 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Trust v Saad, 137 AD3d 849, 853; Cusimano v Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP, 118 AD3d 542, 542; Holschauer v Fisher, 5 AD3d 553, 554). [read post]
29 May 2018, 4:24 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Pac., LLC v Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP, 38 AD3d 34 (2d Dept 2006). [read post]
22 May 2018, 9:05 pm by Walter Olson
My latest at Cato on this week’s decision upholding agreements to individually arbitrate wage and hour claims, in Epic Systems Corp. v. [read post]
9 May 2018, 4:28 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Co. v Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, 56 AD3d 1, 10 [1st Dept 2008]). [read post]
12 Mar 2018, 4:36 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Pac., LLC v Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP, 38 AD3d 34, 38 [2006]; see EBC I, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs & Co., 5 NY3d 11, 19 [2005]). [read post]
8 Feb 2018, 4:22 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Pac., LLC v Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP, 38 AD3d 34 (2d Dept 2006). [read post]
12 Dec 2017, 9:57 am by Wolfgang Demino
Francoeur, on the brief), Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York, N.Y., for Midland Funding, LLC and Midland Credit Management, Inc.Before: LEVAL, STRAUB and DRONEY, Circuit Judges.STRAUB, Circuit Judge:This putative class action alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and New York's usury law. [read post]
12 Dec 2017, 9:57 am by Wolfgang Demino
Francoeur, on the brief), Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York, N.Y., for Midland Funding, LLC and Midland Credit Management, Inc.Before: LEVAL, STRAUB and DRONEY, Circuit Judges.STRAUB, Circuit Judge:This putative class action alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and New York's usury law. [read post]
13 Nov 2017, 4:14 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Pac., LLC v Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP, 38 AD3d 34, 40-41 [2d Dept 2006]), defendant argues that it should not bear that burden in this case, because plaintiff had been advised by its insurer’s third-party administrator to notify its excess carrier of the claim and had not done so. [read post]