Search for: "Lite v. State"
Results 121 - 140
of 312
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Dec 2015, 11:55 am
Caplan v. [read post]
20 Nov 2015, 8:47 am
K. v. [read post]
23 Oct 2015, 9:55 am
Painter v. [read post]
18 Oct 2015, 9:01 pm
Going farther than simply holding that the lower court temporary support award was inadequate, the Appellate Division, Second Department, in its September, 2015, decision in Kaufman v. [read post]
23 Aug 2015, 9:01 pm
In its August 19, 2015 decision in Hof v. [read post]
29 Jun 2015, 4:17 am
[Article 2.2 of the Services Directive expressly excludes a number of services from its scope, including "(d) services in the field of transport, including port services, falling within the scope of Title V of the Treaty". [read post]
19 Jun 2015, 7:09 am
Rostad v. [read post]
8 May 2015, 9:36 pm
The plaintiff (Wife) was granted omnibus pendente lite financial relief pursuant to an order dated February 24, 2004. [read post]
24 Apr 2015, 1:39 pm
Groh v. [read post]
20 Apr 2015, 4:05 pm
Exclusive occupancy pendente lite may also be awarded upon a showing that a spouse has caused domestic strife and that that spouse has voluntarily established an alternative residence (see, Preston v. [read post]
19 Apr 2015, 1:56 pm
Indeed, the tests which, according to the dissent, the defendant failed to meet, were meant to apply in cases involving pendente lite [157 A.D.2d 824] applications when an interim evidentiary inquiry was not to be made (cf., Hite v. [read post]
15 Apr 2015, 2:26 pm
This sum is based upon, inter alia, the Husband's current earnings and business, the parties' pre-divorce lifestyle, the Husband's required payment of pendente lite maintenance for four years, and the fact that the Wife is currently employed (see Graves v. [read post]
14 Apr 2015, 4:18 pm
Exclusive occupancy pendente lite may also be awarded upon a showing that a spouse has caused domestic violence and that that spouse has voluntarily established an alternative residence (see, Preston v. [read post]
13 Apr 2015, 2:12 pm
" (M.S. v. [read post]
12 Apr 2015, 2:05 pm
Gonzalez, 262 AD2d 281; Silver v. [read post]
10 Apr 2015, 4:00 am
Judges Nathan and Netburn also disagreed with Escape's argument that pre-1972 sound recordings should be excluded, with Judge Nathan citing the recent decision in Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. [read post]
7 Apr 2015, 6:46 am
El Tribunal de Apelaciones dictaminó que el caso de United States v. [read post]
23 Mar 2015, 3:32 am
Such relief is rarely granted under New York law, where, as in the case at bar, the movant would be receiving the ultimate relief pendente lite and could ultimately be compensated through monetary damages, Rosa Hair Stylists Inc. v Jaber Food Corp., 218 AD2d 793 (2d Dep’t 1995); see Matos v City of New York, 21 AD3d 936 (2d Dep’t 2005); Neos v Lacey, 291 AD2d 434 (2d Dep’t 2002). [read post]
