Search for: "Rubenstein v. Doe No. 1"
Results 1 - 20
of 34
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Aug 2017, 4:00 am
In Rubenstein v. [read post]
18 Apr 2007, 2:30 pm
Rubenstein v. [read post]
27 Jul 2011, 3:52 am
” Rubenstein also pointed out that in Patterson v Smith, 53 NY2d 98, the Court of Appeals ruled that including charges concerning an employee's performance that were previously addressed in a counseling memorandum does not constitute double jeopardy. [read post]
24 Nov 2010, 3:48 am
”The Appellate Division said that in an application for a stay of arbitration of a public sector labor dispute, two tests are applied: (1) does a statute, court decision or public policy bar arbitration of the matter in accordance with the Taylor Law? [read post]
18 Jan 2023, 8:43 am
If it is, the so-called “heightened” ascertainability test may end up as more of a molehill than a mountain. ______________________ 1 Newberg and Rubenstein on Class Actions § 3:3 (6th ed.) [read post]
10 Jan 2022, 4:50 am
Regardless, the complaint fails to allege that plaintiff would have accepted the offer if she had known of it (see Rubenstein & Rubenstein v Papadakos, 31 AD2d 615, 615 [1st Dept 1968], affd 25 NY2d 751 [1969]). [read post]
15 Dec 2014, 5:38 am
Rubenstein v. [read post]
2 Feb 2018, 4:00 am
” (Daugherty, supra, 144 Cal.App.4th at p. 835; see Rubenstein, supra, 14 Cal.App.5th at p. 881; Collins v. eMachines, Inc. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 249, 255 (Collins).) [read post]
2 Feb 2018, 4:00 am
” (Daugherty, supra, 144 Cal.App.4th at p. 835; see Rubenstein, supra, 14 Cal.App.5th at p. 881; Collins v. eMachines, Inc. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 249, 255 (Collins).) [read post]
29 Jul 2010, 3:45 am
""However, a law firm's "failure to comply with the rules on retainer agreements (22 NYCRR 1215.1) does not preclude it from suing to recover legal fees for the services it provided" (Miller v Nadler, 60 AD3d 499, 500 [Sup Ct New York County 2009], citing Egnotovich v Katten Muchin Zavis & Roseman LLP, 55 AD3d 462, 464 [1st Dept 2008]; Nicoll & Davis LLP v Ainetchi, 52 AD3d 412 [1st Dept 2008]; Seth Rubenstein, P.C.… [read post]
11 Jan 2023, 3:03 am
Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, defendants’ failure to comply with the rules concerning retainer agreements (22 NYCRR 1215.1) does not preclude them from recovering in quantum meruit (Frechtman v Gutterman, 140 AD3d 538,538 [1st Dept 2016]; Seth Rubenstein, P.C. v Ganea, 41 AD3d 54, 60-63 [2d Dept 2007]). [read post]
20 Sep 2010, 10:38 am
Legis. 18-90 (2010).Rubenstein, David S. [read post]
10 May 2010, 4:01 am
Seth Rubenstein, PC v. [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 2:30 pm
Supreme Court’s 1997 decision in Amchem v. [read post]
8 Jun 2021, 2:39 pm
1. [read post]
26 Nov 2012, 5:58 am
Rubenstein, 2 Newberg on Class Actions § 4:49 (5th ed. 2012). [read post]
1 Feb 2021, 5:47 am
(Seth Rubenstein, P.C. v Ganea, 41 AD3d 54, 60 [2d Dept 2007].) [read post]
30 Oct 2012, 4:00 am
On Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Kirtsaeng v John Wiley & Sons, a case dealing with the impact of copyright’s first sale doctrine — 17 USC § 109(a) — on the Copyright Act’s importation prohibition — 17 USC § 602(a)(1). [read post]
30 Oct 2012, 4:00 am
On Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Kirtsaeng v John Wiley & Sons, a case dealing with the impact of copyright’s first sale doctrine — 17 USC § 109(a) — on the Copyright Act’s importation prohibition — 17 USC § 602(a)(1). [read post]
15 Nov 2018, 10:30 pm
Thronson, Mary Pat Treuthart, Yolanda Vázquez, Robin Walker Sterling, Richard A. [read post]
