Search for: "No. 97-3211" Results 1 - 20 of 22
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Feb 2021, 9:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
" Further, the court observed that Workers' compensation qualifies as an exclusive remedy when both the plaintiff and the defendant are acting within the scope of their employment, as co-employees, at the time of injury," citing Macchirole v Giamboi, 97 NY2d 147. [read post]
2 Aug 2021, 3:08 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Accordingly, Pacht met his burden of establishing, prima facie, that Golden Jubilee lacked standing to bring this action against him (see Potruch & Daab, LLC v Abraham, 97 AD3d at 647). [read post]
‘[d]ocumentary evidence’ actually encompasses precious few documents, making CPLR 3211(a)(1) a decidedly narrow ground on which to seek dismissal. [read post]
12 Mar 2018, 4:36 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Fuller Co., Inc., 97 AD3d 713, 714 [2012]; Berger v Temple Beth-El of Great Neck, 303 AD2d 346, 347 [2003]), and, in any event, did not conclusively establish a lack of legal malpractice or deception. [read post]
2 May 2023, 3:36 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Thereafter, the defendants moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) to dismiss the complaint. [read post]
23 Aug 2023, 3:51 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
With respect to the Judiciary Law § 487 cause of action, the plaintiff failed to allege with specificity any material misstatements of fact made by the attorney defendants in the divorce action with the intent to deceive that court (see Bill Birds, Inc. v Stein Law Firm, P.C., 35 NY3d 173, 178 [2020]; see also Looff v Lawton, 97 NY 478, 482 [1884]). [read post]
21 Jun 2023, 4:27 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
The attorney defendants moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them. [read post]
23 May 2018, 3:59 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Fuller Co., Inc., 97 AD3d 713, 714 [2012]; Berger v Temple Beth-El of Great Neck, 303 AD2d 346, 347 [2003]), and, in any event, did not conclusively establish a lack of legal malpractice or deception. [read post]
19 Jul 2012, 4:06 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
In addressing these issues with respect to plaintiff 519 Marcy LLC, Defendants' contention is most easily resolved based upon lack of capacity to sue pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3). [read post]
20 Nov 2017, 3:59 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
97 AD3d 713, 714; Berger v Temple Beth-El of Great Neck, 303 AD2d 346, 347), and, in any event, did not conclusively establish a lack of legal malpractice or deception. [read post]
16 Nov 2010, 2:39 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
"The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the appellants' motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) based upon the doctrine of collateral estoppel. [read post]
6 Nov 2019, 4:01 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
“An extension of time for service is a matter within the court’s discretion” (Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95, 101 [2001]). [read post]
11 Dec 2018, 3:51 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
The Supreme Court granted that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint, concluding that service was not properly made, and denied the plaintiffs’ motions. [read post]
5 Apr 2019, 5:22 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
“An extension of time for service is a matter within the court’s discretion” (Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95, 101). [read post]
27 Mar 2017, 6:44 am by Jeff Welty
Fiscal Year Filings Dispositions Filings Per Judge 2001-02 2372 2647 99 2002-03 2319 2688 97 2003-04 2335 2610 97 2004-05 2365 2717 99 2005-06 2218 2641 92 2006-07 2169 2354 90 2007-08 2276 2501 95 2008-09 2383 2457 99 2009-10 2262 2479 94 2010-11 2193 2415 91 2011-12 2329 2223 97 2012-13 2411 2603 100 2013-14 2271 2431 95 2014-15 2239 2283 93   Georgia. [read post]
18 Jan 2012, 2:49 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
CPLR 306-b authorizes an extension of time for service in two discrete situations: "upon good cause shown" or "in the interest of justice" (Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95, 104-106 [2001]). [read post]