Search for: "Long v. US Dept. of Justice" Results 81 - 100 of 346
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Nov 2021, 4:16 am by SHG
Hosp., 300 AD2d 592, 592 [2d Dept 2002]). [read post]
22 Sep 2021, 9:27 am by Joel R. Brandes
–––Jasmine D.], 165 A.D.3d 476, 85 N.Y.S.3d 430 [1st Dept. 2018]). [read post]
7 Jun 2021, 4:38 am by Franklin C. McRoberts
The Howard Case In Howard v Pooler, 184 AD3d 1160 [4th Dept 2020], a minority member of a real estate development firm sued the majority member. [read post]
15 Mar 2021, 4:59 am by Franklin C. McRoberts
Indeed, in Blank v Blank (222 AD2d 851 [3rd Dept 1995]), the [Court] held a partnership can survive a subsequent corporate formation ‘as long as the rights of third parties, like creditors, are not involved and the parties’ rights under the partnership agreement are not in conflict with the corporation’s functioning. [read post]
8 Feb 2021, 4:40 am by Peter J. Sluka
The dispute in Rosen v Triebenbacher arose between the two fifty-percent members of Barrier Island Enterprises LLC (“BIE”), which owns and operates several beachside restaurants and bars in Long Beach Island, New Jersey, including Kubel’s Too Restaurant and Bar. [read post]
3 Feb 2021, 5:31 am by Joel R. Brandes
 February 1, 2021 ​​ Appellate Division, First Department Appellate Divison affirms Charging Lien based upon account stated where no objection to invoices during year long representation               In Trafelet v Cipolla & Co., LLC, --- N.Y.S.3d ----, 2021 WL 189200, 2021 N.Y. [read post]
3 Feb 2021, 5:27 am by Joel R. Brandes
 February 1, 2021 ​​ Appellate Division, First Department Appellate Divison affirms Charging Lien based upon account stated where no objection to invoices during year long representation               In Trafelet v Cipolla & Co., LLC, --- N.Y.S.3d ----, 2021 WL 189200, 2021 N.Y. [read post]
18 Jan 2021, 2:11 am by Peter Mahler
Based on those unanimous rulings, the court in Farro v Schochet, __ AD3d __, 2021 NY Slip Op 00150 [2d Dept Jan. 13, 2021], granted my clients’ request to dismiss an action brought against them by a cashed-out minority member who sought to rescind the merger on grounds of alleged fraud and breach of fiduciary, and who also argued for rescission on the ground that he was not permitted to vote on the merger at a meeting of the members called on 20-days notice. [read post]
28 Dec 2020, 12:20 pm by DONALD SCARINCI
” Congress passed the Act in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. [read post]
22 Dec 2020, 2:33 pm by Joel R. Brandes
  Justice Dillon noted that allegations of adultery present unique issues of proof. [read post]
17 Dec 2020, 11:10 pm by Josh Blackman
For the latter reason, the applicants argue that the Order is not neutral and generally applicable for purposes of Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. [read post]