Search for: "MATTER OF STATE OF NY v. King" Results 161 - 180 of 251
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Sep 2019, 3:39 am by Franklin C. McRoberts
The New York Constitution explicitly states that the Surrogate’s Court has jurisdiction over matters involving decedents only insofar as they are “not within the exclusive jurisdiction of supreme court” (NY Const Art VI, 12 [d]). [read post]
6 Feb 2016, 1:27 pm by Stephen Bilkis
Claimants who allege to be distributees of the decedent have the burden of proof on each of these elements (Matter of Cruz, NYLJ, Jan. 7, 2002, at 29, col 4 [Sur Ct, Kings County]; Matter of Balacich, NYLJ, Jan. 24, 1997 at 30, col 2 [Sur Ct, Kings County]). [read post]
17 Sep 2018, 3:25 am by Peter Mahler
Peter Sherwood’s ruling last month in Matter of Goyal (Vintage India NYC, LLC), 2018 NY Slip Op 31926(U) [Sup Ct NY County Aug. 7, 2018]. [read post]
30 Jan 2023, 4:52 am by Franklin C. McRoberts
In Doeblin v MacArthur (2023 NY Slip Op 30133(U) [Sup Ct, NY County 2023]), Manhattan Commercial Division Justice Andrea J. [read post]
6 Sep 2022, 6:12 am by Dan Bressler
” [See the complete article for more detail on]: “The first was Larsen v Larsen (2022 NY Slip Op 32415(U) [Sup Ct, Kings County July 18, 2022]“ “Less than a month after Larsen, the Delaware Supreme Court, in Griffith v Stein (___A3d ___ [Del Aug. 16, 2022]“ “Trump’s Lawyers May Become Witnesses or Targets in Documents Investigation” — “Two lawyers for former President Donald J. [read post]
13 Dec 2007, 10:16 am
______________DeCrescenzo v Gonzalez2007 NY Slip Op 09720Decided on December 11, 2007Appellate Division, Second DepartmentPublished by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.Decided on December 11, 2007 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT A. [read post]
15 May 2010, 3:23 am by SHG
True, an objectively reasonable traffic stop is not invalidated because the primary motivation of the police was to investigate some other matter (see Whren v United States, 517 US 806 [1996]; People v. [read post]