Search for: "Kissell v. Kissell"
Results 1 - 20
of 47
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Mar 2024, 3:28 am
President & Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. [read post]
26 Jun 2023, 3:15 am
The deceit under Judiciary Law § 487 and fraud claims were insufficiently pleaded because they do not identify any misrepresentation made by defendants (see Bill Birds, Inc. v Stein Law Firm, P.C., 35 NY3d 173, 178 [2020]; Eurycleia Partners, LP v Seward & Kissel, LLP, 12 NY3d 553, 559 [2009]; CPLR 3016 [b]). [read post]
5 Dec 2022, 4:58 am
Here, the cause of action alleging breach of fiduciary duty was subject to a three-year statute of limitations since the relief sought was monetary in nature and the complaint failed to allege all the requisite elements of fraud, including justifiable reliance (see Eurycleia Partners, LP v Seward & Kissel, LLP, 12 NY3d 553, 562; IDT Corp. v Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 12 NY3d at 140; Oppedisano v D’Agostino, 196 AD3d 497, 499). [read post]
17 Apr 2022, 1:01 pm
Please see the below from NYCOM. [read post]
15 Apr 2022, 3:55 am
“‘The elements of a cause of action for fraud require a material misrepresentation of a fact, knowledge of its falsity, an intent to induce reliance, justifiable reliance by the plaintiff and damages'” (Emby Hosiery Corp. v Tawil, 196 AD3d 462, 464, quoting Eurycleia Partners, LP v Seward & Kissel, LLP, 12 NY3d 553, 559). [read post]
22 Mar 2022, 4:00 am
Specifically, Judge Kaplan appointed the law firm of Seward & Kissel LLP (Seward). [read post]
3 Sep 2021, 5:40 am
In Kissel v. [read post]
16 Jun 2021, 3:14 am
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]
18 Mar 2020, 5:00 pm
(c) v. [read post]
22 Feb 2020, 10:54 am
Mass. 1975) (3-judge court), and the one decision cited in that case, State v. [read post]
28 Jun 2019, 6:03 am
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
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
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]
19 Jul 2018, 11:13 am
See Euryclei Partners LP v Seward & Kissel, LLP, 12 N.Y.3d 553, 559 (2009); Ross v. [read post]
19 Jul 2018, 11:13 am
See Euryclei Partners LP v Seward & Kissel, LLP, 12 N.Y.3d 553, 559 (2009); Ross v. [read post]
13 Jul 2018, 1:31 pm
Seward & Kissel, LLP, 12 N.Y.3d 553, 559, 910 N.E.2d 976 (2009); Ross v. [read post]
15 Oct 2017, 3:17 am
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
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]
20 Aug 2017, 9:01 pm
That balance is remarkably reflected in the August 16, 2017 decision in Weisberger v. [read post]
20 Aug 2017, 9:01 pm
That balance is remarkably reflected in the August 16, 2017 decision in Weisberger v. [read post]
