Search for: "Hennings v. Hennings" Results 581 - 600 of 2,021
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Dec 2017, 4:35 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
We note that “[w]hen the requirements for service of process have not been met, it is irrelevant that defendant may have actually received the documents” (Raschel v Rish, 69 NY2d 694, 697; see County of Nassau v Letosky, 34 AD3d 414, 415; Long Is. [read post]
7 Dec 2011, 10:17 am by PaulKostro
Division of Youth and Family Services v. [read post]
7 Sep 2012, 10:56 am
 The appellate division was referred to as 'the fox [watching] the hen house.' Appellant demanded that each appellate judge disclose for the record whether he had discussed the case with the trial court, saying: 'But it’s common knowledge in the legal community, and you would be insulting me if you suggested otherwise, for us to believe that you judges don’t talk like women in a sewing circle about us lawyers. [read post]