Search for: "Leon Ruchelsman"
Results 1 - 20
of 26
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Jul 2022, 3:28 am
With Justice Knipel splitting his time as Brooklyn’s Administrative Judge for Civil Matters as well as taking on a commercial foreclosure caseload, it appears that the lion’s share of new Commercial Division assignments are landing with Justices Leon Ruchelsman and Reginald Boddie. [read post]
8 Nov 2018, 4:21 am
A slight exaggeration, but in 195 Hawthorne Partners, LLC. v Thompson 2018 NY Slip Op 32804(U) October 30, 2018 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 506136/18 Judge: Leon Ruchelsman there are pages and pages of discussion of a back-and-forth transfer, deeds, mortgages, foreclosures of what must be a valuable property. [read post]
11 Sep 2019, 4:49 am
Judge Leon Ruchelsman picks up: “To succeed on a claim for.legal malpractice it must be shown that the attorney failed to act with the “ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal professional (Darby & Darby, P.C. v; VST International, Inc., 95 NY2d 308, 716 NYS2d 378 [2000]). [read post]
14 Jun 2021, 5:47 am
Dial Car Inc. v Tuch & Cohen, LLP 2021 NY Slip Op 30407(U) February 10, 2021 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 514138/20 Judge: Leon Ruchelsman gives a nice description of the current standard of JL § 487 in the Second Department. [read post]
2 May 2022, 4:12 am
Dial Car Inc. v Kordonsky 2022 NY Slip Op 31067(U) March 31, 2022 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 521900/2021 Judge: Leon Ruchelsman is a case which has been brought previously and is now in its second amended complaint. [read post]
26 Aug 2019, 3:44 am
The Court’s Decision The court’s decision, by Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Leon Ruchelsman, began its legal analysis with fundamental rule found in the statute itself, that “only a member may seek dissolution pursuant to Limited Liability Company Law § 702. [read post]
6 Jun 2019, 4:00 am
2019 NY Slip Op 31506(U) May 24, 2019 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 510351/18 Judge: Leon Ruchelsman is a short story of heartbreak. [read post]
13 Apr 2022, 5:32 am
Fleischmann, 2022 NY Slip Op 30808(U) March 10, 2022 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 512222/2021 Judge: Leon Ruchelsman is an example of what to do when the statute of limitation is approaching yet the underlying case has not concluded. [read post]
28 Nov 2018, 4:16 am
., LLC. v Rivkin Radler LLP, .2018 NY Slip Op 32913(U) November 13, 2018 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 505978/18 Judge: Leon Ruchelsman is an example of what happens when a doctor to doctor business sale goes wrong. [read post]
19 Jul 2021, 4:41 am
On July 12, 2021, Brooklyn Commercial Division Justice Leon Ruchelsman issued the third decision in the knock-down-drag-out Pachter litigation addressing whether common-law / equitable dissolution of an LLC exists as a viable cause of action in New York. [read post]
7 Feb 2022, 4:29 am
Rather, as related in the decision by Brooklyn Commercial Division Justice Leon Ruchelsman, the defendants maintained: the transaction was only one of a loan provided by the plaintiff and the operating agreement was worded in that fashion to avoid the appearance of an interest bearing loan prohibited by Jewish law. [read post]
17 Nov 2023, 5:43 am
Blank v Petrosyants 2023 NY Slip Op 33932(U) November 1, 2023 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 517568/19 Judge: Leon Ruchelsman is an example. [read post]
The Oral Partnership Operating as a Corporation: Is it a Partnership? A Corporation? Can it be Both?
15 Mar 2021, 4:59 am
In a recent decision from Kings County Commercial Division Justice Leon Ruchelsman, Eikenberry v Lamson, 2021 NY Slip Op 30561(U) [Sup Ct, Kings County Feb. 19, 2021], the Court considered both of these concepts, authoring a scholarly opinion on New York’s legal rules for when an alleged oral partnership can survive the alleged partners’ subsequent decision to operate the business in a different entity form. [read post]
18 Sep 2023, 4:34 am
I say “in theory” because in a lawsuit resulting in a recent decision by Brooklyn Commercial Division Justice Leon Ruchelsman, three sibling partners of a New York general partnership without a partnership agreement have found it exceedingly difficult – despite many years of litigation – to disassociate themselves from their antagonistic brother over their disagreement about what to do with the entity’s sole asset, an apartment building in Brooklyn. … [read post]
10 Mar 2021, 3:45 am
In Dial Car Inc. v Tuch & Cohen, LLP 2021 NY Slip Op 30407(U) February 10, 2021 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 514138/20 Judge: Leon Ruchelsman the court dismissed. [read post]
28 Feb 2022, 4:38 am
YMSF In the first case, YMSF Family Partnership v Beitel, Index No. 514791/2017, Brooklyn Commercial Division Justice Leon Ruchelsman granted summary judgment on the plaintiff’s claim for a declaratory judgment seeking to recognize his 49.9% membership interest in 5309 18th Ave Besatya LLC (“Besatya”), a limited liability company that owns real property in Brooklyn. [read post]
11 Sep 2021, 8:16 am
” The Decisions In a pair of Decisions and Orders available here and here, Kings County Commercial Division Justice Leon Ruchelsman granted Peter a broad preliminary injunction, then narrowed the scope of the injunction. [read post]
20 Nov 2022, 11:03 pm
Chernomordik v Ocean Sand Development, LLC, decided earlier this month by Brooklyn Commercial Division Justice Leon Ruchelsman, presents one of the more intriguing examples of a dissolution case highlighting the centrality of the purpose clause in a realty holding LLC’s operating agreement. [read post]
11 Sep 2021, 8:16 am
” In a pair of Decisions and Orders available here and here, Kings County Commercial Division Justice Leon Ruchelsman [read post]
11 Jan 2021, 4:46 am
The Court’s Decision In a decision by Brooklyn Commercial Division Justice Leon Ruchelsman, the court rejected Rostek’s argument that there existed no fiduciary relationship or duty as a matter of law, writing that there has been evidence submitted that at the time the plaintiff and defendant were negotiating the buyout the defendant was negotiating to sell the property to others for more than was evaluated between plaintiff and defendant. [read post]
