Search for: "Aronson Mayefsky & Sloan, LLP v Praeger" Results 1 - 1 of 1
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Jan 2025, 4:14 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Also contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, the Brooks affidavit did not require the attachment of SZS’s billing statements, as Seibel not only failed to object to the billing statements, but admittedly paid the fees (see Aronson Mayefsky & Sloan, LLP v Praeger, 228 AD3d 182, 185 [1st Dept 2024]). [read post]