Search for: "Kissell v. Kissell" Results 1 - 20 of 29
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Aug 2011, 11:51 am by Jacqueline Lipton
For those of you who may have missed it, check out Judge Martin Sheehan's decision in Kissel v Schwartz in Kentucky.  [read post]
15 Oct 2017, 3:17 am by Keith L. Miller
  The Court further stated that the firm had a duty at least to discuss whether a due diligence inquiry would be performed. http://Mitchell Barack v. [read post]
15 Oct 2017, 3:17 am by Keith L. Miller
  The Court further stated that the firm had a duty at least to discuss whether a due diligence inquiry would be performed. http://Mitchell Barack v. [read post]
17 Mar 2014, 9:05 pm by Walter Olson
” Merrily Archer v. [read post]
26 Jan 2012, 8:53 am
Category: Recent Decisions;Foreclosure Opinions Body: SC18547 - Hudson Valley Bank v. [read post]
23 Mar 2010, 1:25 am
Thomas NEW YORK COUNTYEmployment Discrimination Suit Against Seward & Kissel Is Dismissed; Retaliation Action Is Sustained Falu v. [read post]
28 Jun 2019, 6:03 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
 Sapienza v Becker & Poliakoff  2019 NY Slip Op 05218 Decided on June 27, 2019 Appellate Division, First Department is an example: “Plaintiff’s fraud claim was properly dismissed, as plaintiff did not allege “actual pecuniary loss sustained” by plaintiff’s decedent individually “as the direct result of” defendants’ alleged fraud (Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney, 88 NY2d 413, 421 [1996] [internal quotation… [read post]
28 Jun 2019, 6:03 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
 Sapienza v Becker & Poliakoff  2019 NY Slip Op 05218 Decided on June 27, 2019 Appellate Division, First Department is an example: “Plaintiff’s fraud claim was properly dismissed, as plaintiff did not allege “actual pecuniary loss sustained” by plaintiff’s decedent individually “as the direct result of” defendants’ alleged fraud (Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney, 88 NY2d 413, 421 [1996] [internal quotation… [read post]
18 Mar 2019, 4:13 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
While incontrovertible proof of fraud is not required at the pleading stage, CPLR 3016[b] mandates particularity such that elementary facts from which misconduct may be inferred must be stated (see Eurycleia Partners, LP v Seward & Kissel, LLP, supra). [read post]
16 Jun 2021, 3:14 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
A claim rooted in fraud must be pleaded with the requisite particularity under CPLR 3016 (b)’ ” (Shahid v Ridgewood Bushwick Senior Citizens Council, Inc., 181 AD3d 744, 745 [2020], quoting Eurycleia Partners, LP v Seward & Kissel, LLP, 12 NY3d 553, 559 [2009]). [read post]
19 Apr 2017, 4:38 am by Edith Roberts
In Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. [read post]