Search for: "Lemle v Lemle"
Results 1 - 9
of 9
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Jul 2021, 4:41 am
See Lemle v. [read post]
8 Sep 2021, 4:33 am
While each annual tax return involves a separate contractual engagement, defendants have not presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate that they did not engage in any corrective or remedial services in connection with the overpayments in the Prior Years (see Lemle v Regen, Benz & MacKenzie, C.P.A ‘s, P.C., 165 AD3d 414, 415 [1st Dept 2018]). [read post]
12 Mar 2018, 4:36 am
[*3]To the extent that the plaintiffs’ allegations are insufficiently specific to each legal matter or particularized, the plaintiffs set forth a reasonable basis to believe that, with additional discovery, they would be able to develop sufficient facts to make more specific allegations (see Lemle v Lemle, 92 AD3d 494, 499-500 [2012]). [read post]
20 Nov 2017, 3:59 am
[*3]To the extent that the plaintiffs’ allegations are insufficiently specific to each legal matter or particularized, the plaintiffs set forth a reasonable basis to believe that, with additional discovery, they would be able to develop sufficient facts to make more specific allegations (see Lemle v Lemle, 92 AD3d 494, 499-500). [read post]
23 May 2018, 3:59 am
[*3]To the extent that the plaintiffs’ allegations are insufficiently specific to each legal matter or particularized, the plaintiffs set forth a reasonable basis to believe that, with additional discovery, they would be able to develop sufficient facts to make more specific allegations (see Lemle v Lemle, 92 AD3d 494, 499-500 [2012]). [read post]
22 Jan 2024, 3:32 am
A member might also take guidance from the First Department’s decision in Lemle v Lemle, 92 AD3d 494, 497 [1st Dept 2012]. [read post]
18 Jan 2018, 6:32 am
Long Beach Imaging Holdings, LLC, 114 A.D.3d 888, 889, 981 N.Y.S.2d 135 (2d Dep’t 2014); Lemle v. [read post]
25 Jun 2012, 3:00 am
Jones, Lemle v. [read post]
19 Oct 2020, 4:19 am
But in a handful of decisions over the decades, appeals courts have continued to hold that common-law dissolution remains a viable cause of action for corporate dissolution, although it remains uncommon and requires, in the words of Lemle v Lemle, 92 AD3d 494 [1st Dept 2012], “evidence of egregious conduct. [read post]
