Search for: "Amalfitano v. Rosenberg"
Results 21 - 40
of 43
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Jan 2012, 2:41 am
"Plaintiff stated a cause of action under Judiciary Law § 487 by alleging that defendant deceived or attempted to deceive the court with a fictitious letter addressed to him from the former licensing director of the City's Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) that stated, inter alia, that plaintiff was under a lifetime ban on owning any licenses with the TLC (see Amalfitano v Rosenberg, 12 NY3d 8, 14 [2009]). [read post]
5 May 2010, 3:42 am
"Plaintiff stated a cause of action under Judiciary Law § 487 by alleging that defendant deceived or attempted to deceive the court with a fictitious letter addressed to him from the former licensing director of the City's Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) that stated, inter alia, that plaintiff was under a lifetime ban on owning any licenses with the TLC (see Amalfitano v Rosenberg, 12 NY3d 8, 14 [2009]). [read post]
14 Dec 2009, 2:43 am
" "The court determined that a subsequent decision of the Court of Appeals in Amalfitano v Rosenberg (12 NY3d 8) provided a reason for granting renewal, and, upon renewal, to deny that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the complaint as against Villar with respect to the Judiciary Law § 487 cause of action. [read post]
27 May 2008, 4:39 am
In Amalfitano v. [read post]
16 Jul 2021, 4:12 am
Corp. v Lowenthal, Landau, Fischer & Bring (261 AD2d 282 [1st Dept 1999]), none of which dealt with a violation of Judiciary Law § 487, a decision we decline to follow because Judiciary Law § 487 is a statute that has its origins in the penal law and its “intent [is] to enforce an attorney’s special obligation to protect the integrity of the courts and foster their truth-seeking function” (Amalfitano v Rosenberg,… [read post]
6 Dec 2023, 4:25 am
Defendant had an ethical duty as an officer of the court to uphold the integrity of the court and not to subvert its truth-seeking process for the improper benefit of his client (see Amalfitano v Rosenberg, 12 NY3d 8, 14 [2009]). [read post]
13 Apr 2018, 4:10 am
Judiciary Law § 487 “focuses on the attorney’s intent to deceive, not the deceit’s success” (Amalfitano v Rosenberg, 12 NY3d 8, 14). [read post]
12 Sep 2017, 4:00 am
Here, plaintiffs are seeking to recover damages for additional legal fees made necessary by defendant’s alleged misconduct in the foreclosure action, and they are not collaterally attacking the judgment of foreclosure (see generally Amalfitano v Rosenberg, 12 NY3d 8, 15 [2009]). [read post]
24 May 2010, 3:54 am
" "The court determined that a subsequent decision of the Court of Appeals in Amalfitano v Rosenberg (12 NY3d 8) provided a reason for granting renewal, and, upon renewal, to deny that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the complaint as against Villar with respect to the Judiciary Law § 487 cause of action. [read post]
6 Aug 2019, 4:33 am
Rather, “they are designed to punish attorneys who violate the statute and to deter them from betraying their ‘special obligation to protect the integrity of the courts and foster their truth-seeking function’ ” (id., quoting Amalfitano v Rosenberg, 12 NY3d 8, 14 [2009]). [read post]
11 Dec 2009, 3:31 am
Tomorrow, we'll see how a motion to renew worked and how the Court of Appeals decision in Amalfitano v. [read post]
21 Jun 2010, 6:05 am
Furthermore, the Third Dep't ruled in Amalfitano v. [read post]
21 Jul 2008, 9:46 am
COURT OF APPEALS, SECOND CIRCUITLegal ProfessionState High Court to Decide if Lawyer's Unsuccessful Attempted Deceit a Basis for Judiciary Law §487 Liability Amalfitano, plaintiffs-appellees v. [read post]
13 Nov 2019, 5:22 am
” The statute focuses on the intent to deceive (see Amalfitano v Rosenberg, 12 NY3d 8, 14 [2009]). [read post]
20 Mar 2024, 4:44 am
” This provision is “the modern-day counterpart of a statute dating from the first decades after Magna Carta; its language virtually (and remarkably) unchanged from that of a law adopted by New York’s Legislature two years before the United States Constitution was ratified” (Amalfitano v Rosenberg, 12 NY3d 8, 14 [2009]). [read post]
16 Apr 2021, 5:46 am
” (Amalfitano v Rosenberg, 533 F.3d 117, 123~24 (2d Cir.), certified question accepted, 11 NY3d 728, 894 NE2d 643 (2008), and certified question answered, 12 NY3d 8, 903 NE2d 265 [2009]). [read post]
1 Aug 2018, 4:40 am
Rather, “they are designed to punish attorneys who violate the statute and to deter them from betraying their special obligation to protect the integrity of the courts and foster their truth-seeking function'” (id., quoting Amalfitano v Rosenberg, 12 NY3d 8, 14 [2009]). [read post]
17 Sep 2021, 4:52 am
Judiciary Law § 487 permits recovery of treble damages in a civil action against an attorney who intentionally deceives the court or a party during the pendency of a judicial proceeding (see Beshara v Little, 215 AD2d 823, 823 [1995]; see generally Amalfitano v Rosenberg, 12 NY3d 8, 14 [2009]). [read post]
9 Mar 2009, 4:42 am
This month's The Court of Appeals decision in Amilfatano v, Rosenberg will likely boost litigator's awareness of the statute. [read post]
12 Mar 2018, 4:36 am
[w]ilfully delays his client’s suit with a view to his own gain; or, wilfully receives any money or allowance for or on account of any money which he has not laid out, or becomes answerable for, [i]s guilty of a misdemeanor, and [is liable for] treble damages, to be recovered in a civil action” (Judiciary Law § 487; see Amalfitano v Rosenberg, 12 NY3d 8, 14 [2009]). [read post]
