Search for: "Zuckerman v Zuckerman"
Results 101 - 120
of 195
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Sep 2013, 3:54 am
Many tribunals have been routinely making a Zuckerman addition in consequence.The Upper Tribunal Voyvoda has put a stop to that. [read post]
3 Sep 2013, 3:54 am
Many tribunals have been routinely making a Zuckerman addition in consequence.The Upper Tribunal Voyvoda has put a stop to that. [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]
16 Sep 2017, 6:55 am
Consequently, it is incumbent upon the moving party to make a prima facie showing that he is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law (CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067 [1979]); Zarr v Riccio, 180 AD2d 734, 735 [2d Dept 1992]). [read post]
20 Aug 2010, 2:42 am
The panel found in Sullivan v. [read post]
22 Feb 2011, 1:24 am
Zuckerman critically analyses the decision. [read post]
16 Mar 2010, 6:03 am
In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). [read post]
What the Archimedes' Principle and Empty In-Ground Swimming Pools Have to Do With Insurance Coverage
12 May 2010, 11:12 am
This blawg's discussion of the Javier v. [read post]
27 Nov 2007, 2:19 pm
United States v. [read post]
30 Jan 2017, 7:55 am
In Congregation Ateres Yisroel v. [read post]
17 Nov 2010, 11:41 am
., P.C. v. [read post]
13 Mar 2024, 3:23 am
She did not submit an affidavit setting forth her version of the initial conversations with defendants or any other interactions that would support her attorney’s contentions that she was under a reasonable impression that defendants had agreed to represent her on a personal injury claim or that the law firm did not clearly disclaim representation (see Zuckerman v New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980] [an attorney affirmation is insufficient to put before the court facts of which she… [read post]
4 Jun 2012, 3:28 am
In any event, those writings are not acknowledged as required by CPLR 4538 and, thus, do not qualify as evidentiary proof in admissible form (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). [read post]
28 Oct 2008, 5:53 pm
PLLC v Motor Veh. [read post]
17 Aug 2017, 4:11 am
Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). [read post]
3 Oct 2022, 6:43 am
Leeder v Antonucci, 195 AD3d 1592, 1593 [4th Dept 2021]; see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). [read post]
22 Jul 2022, 5:43 am
The NAB v. [read post]
22 Oct 2013, 11:01 am
Co. v New York Univ. [read post]
8 Dec 2008, 4:33 am
Khouzam v. [read post]
8 Sep 2013, 7:29 pm
If the moving party meets his burden, the party opposing the motion must produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of a material issue of fact that would require a trial as held in the analogous case of Zuckerman v City of New York. [read post]
