Search for: "Zuckerman v Zuckerman"
Results 161 - 180
of 195
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Nov 2009, 2:04 am
Estis, a founding partner at Rosenberg & Estis, and Jeffrey Turkel, a partner at the firm, write that with its Oct. 22, 2009 decision in Roberts v. [read post]
21 Oct 2009, 4:55 am
The topic is timely in light of King v. [read post]
4 Oct 2009, 10:06 am
"Once this showing has been made . . . the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion for summary judgment to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of material issues of fact which require a trial of the action" (id.; see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). [read post]
4 Oct 2009, 10:06 am
"Once this showing has been made . . . the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion for summary judgment to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of material issues of fact which require a trial of the action" (id.; see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). [read post]
17 Sep 2009, 9:44 am
Yesudian v. [read post]
25 Aug 2009, 1:02 pm
Scott Oswald and Jason Zuckerman of The Employment Law Group ® law firm on the Ninth Circuit's recent decision in Van Asdale v. [read post]
17 Aug 2009, 10:44 am
New Massachusetts companies. [read post]
25 Jul 2009, 1:12 pm
In opposition to Liberty's motion and in support of its cross motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact or establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, respectively, so as to preclude the award of summary judgment to Liberty (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). [read post]
20 Jul 2009, 11:46 am
” Recently, the DOL's Administrative Review Board issued a landmark decision in favor of a SOX whistleblower in Kalkunte v. [read post]
10 Feb 2009, 3:46 am
Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to those parts of the first cross motion (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562, 404 N.E.2d 718, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595). [read post]
31 Jan 2009, 2:45 pm
Doe v. [read post]
19 Dec 2008, 4:07 am
Or Ethan Zuckerman’s inspiring and challenging piece on International News. [read post]
18 Dec 2008, 10:36 pm
Zaden v. [read post]
8 Dec 2008, 4:33 am
Khouzam v. [read post]
12 Nov 2008, 10:36 am
In light of this determination, we find that Supreme Court properly denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d at 562; Guiles v Simser, 35 AD3d 1054, 1055 [2006]). [read post]
28 Oct 2008, 5:53 pm
PLLC v Motor Veh. [read post]
6 Oct 2008, 7:47 am
Thus, plaintiff failed to meet its burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562; New York Cas. [read post]
22 Sep 2008, 7:33 am
Co. v. [read post]
11 Aug 2008, 2:40 am
However, counsel "must submit supporting facts in evidentiary form sufficient to justify the default" (Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead v Jablonsky, 283 AD2d 553, 554 [2001]) and include "a detailed explanation of [the] oversights" (Hospital for Joint Diseases v ELRAC, Inc., 11 AD3d 432, 433 [2004]; see also Grezinsky v Mount Hebron Cemetery, 305 AD2d 542 [2003]; Morris v Metropolitan Transp. [read post]
7 Jul 2008, 7:29 pm
Take a look at this new lawsuit filed by Scruggs against one of the law firms that had been defending the Rigsby sisters, Kerri and Cori, in the Renfroe v. [read post]
