Search for: "Matter of Kaufman v Kaufman"
Results 61 - 80
of 192
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Feb 2024, 6:00 am
Citing Lundgren v Kaufman Astoria Studios, 261 AD2d 513, the Appellate Division noted that "Generally, where a collective bargaining agreement containing a grievance and arbitration procedure ... a covered employee may not sue his or her employer directly for breach of the agreement, but must proceed through the union in accordance with the contract. [read post]
16 Jan 2019, 3:59 pm
See Hill v. [read post]
24 Jul 2012, 5:46 am
Kaufman v. [read post]
21 Apr 2007, 3:03 am
In making its determination, the Court analyzed the motion using the five factors set forth in Kaufman v. [read post]
30 Oct 2009, 3:28 pm
Thomas v. [read post]
12 May 2023, 4:57 pm
Christopher Durkin v. [read post]
29 Mar 2008, 5:28 pm
Simpson v. [read post]
2 Nov 2012, 10:52 am
I know this well because I argued this point before the Colorado Supreme Court in 1997 in People v. [read post]
4 Oct 2010, 4:00 am
Driscoll in Matter of Kaufman (L.I. [read post]
31 May 2012, 2:55 am
The defendants also established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging breach of fiduciary duty by showing that they did not knowingly induce the majority members of MAG to breach their fiduciary duty to the plaintiffs (see Kaufman v Cohen, 307 AD2d 113, 125). [read post]
26 Jul 2013, 6:09 am
Asked to account for an intervening change in the law based on First Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Kaufman v. [read post]
4 Aug 2013, 9:01 pm
Such was the holding of the Appellate Division, Second Department, in its July 31, 2013 decision in Kiernan v. [read post]
10 Apr 2013, 10:01 pm
Here's proof in the pudding: In Jennifer Kaufman v. [read post]
4 Dec 2008, 12:06 pm
As Coy v. [read post]
30 Sep 2010, 7:42 am
” But Kaufman v. [read post]
4 Jun 2013, 1:47 pm
Read the opinion here:Mountanos v. [read post]
9 Dec 2010, 3:40 pm
Kaufman. [read post]
4 Feb 2020, 9:36 am
Kaufman v. [read post]
10 May 2012, 5:10 pm
Two weeks ago, on LXBN this Week, we talked about two huge cases: Brinker and Christopher v. [read post]
21 Nov 2019, 4:27 am
The Emerson defendants and the Greenberg Traurig defendants established that this action was without any reasonable basis in law or fact and that the primary purpose in commencing this action was to harass them (see Baxter v Javier, 109 AD3d 493, 495; Zysk v Kaufman, Borgeest & Ryan, LLP, 53 AD3d 482, 483; Nyitray v New York Athletic Club in City of N.Y., 274 AD2d 326, 327; Matter of Entertainment Partners Group v Davis, 198… [read post]
