Search for: "Zuckerman v Zuckerman"
Results 41 - 60
of 195
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Apr 2020, 6:00 am
Zuckerman v. [read post]
5 Apr 2020, 4:47 pm
On 3 April 2020 Warby J gave a judgment (at a remote hearing via Zoom) in the case of Zenith Logistics v Coury [2020] EWHC 774 (QB). [read post]
13 Feb 2020, 6:46 am
Once such proof has been offered, the burden then shifts to the opposing party. who, in order to defeat the motion for sununary judgment, must proffer evidence in admissible form … and must ‘·show fac ts sufficient to require a trial of any issue of facf’ (CPLR 3212 [b ]; see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 427 NYS2d 595 [1980]). [read post]
2 Feb 2020, 4:41 pm
Last Week in the Courts On 28 to 30 January 2020 there will be a CMC in the phone hacking case of Various Claimants v MGN. [read post]
29 Oct 2019, 4:23 am
Plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact in opposition (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). [read post]
22 Oct 2019, 4:00 am
Samara v. [read post]
22 Aug 2019, 8:12 am
The Court referred to Mustapha v. [read post]
22 Aug 2019, 8:12 am
The Court referred to Mustapha v. [read post]
1 Aug 2019, 4:05 am
Plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact in opposition (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). [read post]
17 Jul 2019, 3:58 am
A party moving for summary judgment must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, offering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). [read post]
27 Jun 2019, 6:12 am
The case is Zuckerman v. [read post]
8 Jun 2019, 5:43 am
Corp. v. 2319 Richmond Terrace Corp., 141 A.D.3d 626, 627, 34 N.Y.S.3d 616).Oral promise to pay credit card bills during the pendency of action unenforceable In Novick v Novick, ‑‑‑ N.Y.S.3d ‑‑‑‑, 2019 WL 2202438 (Mem), 2019 N.Y. [read post]
9 Nov 2018, 8:27 am
Additional Resources: Zuckerman v. [read post]
20 Jun 2018, 4:10 am
Here, defendants met their initial burden on the motion with respect to that element (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). [read post]
11 Jun 2018, 4:23 am
., Inc. v Erie County Water Auth., 115 AD3d 1351, 1351-1353 [4th Dept 2014]). [read post]
14 Mar 2018, 4:18 am
, 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). [read post]
12 Feb 2018, 5:17 am
Co., 272 AD2d 886, 887 [4th Dept 2000]; see generally Nowacki v Becker, 71 AD3d 1496, 1497 [4th Dept 2010]), and plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact to defeat the motion (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). [read post]
12 Dec 2017, 4:08 am
, 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). [read post]
9 Nov 2017, 4:02 am
“Defendant has established that the malpractice claim fails for multiple reasons, and plaintiffs have failed to raise any triable issues (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; Sabalza v Salgado, 85 AD3d 436, 437 [1st Dept 2011]). [read post]
2 Oct 2017, 4:23 am
” Mazurek v Metropolitan Museum of Art, supra; Zuckerman v City of New York, supra. [read post]
