Search for: "Schrage v. Schrage"
Results 1 - 11
of 11
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Jul 2010, 12:30 pm
One they missed: Facebook v. [read post]
13 Oct 2011, 8:45 pm
Schrage, No. [read post]
16 Jul 2021, 4:12 am
Corp. v Lowenthal, Landau, Fischer & Bring (261 AD2d 282 [1st Dept 1999]), none of which dealt with a violation of Judiciary Law § 487, a decision we decline to follow because Judiciary Law § 487 is a statute that has its origins in the penal law and its “intent [is] to enforce an attorney’s special obligation to protect the integrity of the courts and foster their truth-seeking function” (Amalfitano v Rosenberg, 12 NY3d 8, 14… [read post]
6 Dec 2023, 4:25 am
Mazel 315 W. 35th LLC v 315 W. 35th Assoc. [read post]
10 Jun 2009, 4:17 am
" "A violation of Judiciary Law § 487 may be established either by the defendant's alleged deceit or by an alleged chronic, extreme pattern of legal delinquency by the defendant' " (Izko Sportswear Co., Inc. v Flaum, 25 AD3d 534, 537; see Amalfitano v Rosenberg, 12 NY3d 8; Schindler v Issler & Schrage, 262 AD2d 226, lv dismissed 94 NY2d 791, rearg denied 94 NY2d 859). [read post]
5 May 2023, 6:23 am
Schindler v Isller & Schrage, P.C., 262 AD2d 226 [1st Dept 1999], lv dismissed 94 NY2d 791 [1999] [plaintiff granted judgment on Judiciary Law § 487 claim as defendant law firm knowingly withheld crucial information from court in underlying action]; cf Betz v Blatt, 160 AD3d 696 [2d Dept 2018] [defendant attorney was properly denied summary dismissal of Judiciary Law § 487 claim based on allegations that he filed blatantly deficient accounting with court,… [read post]
9 Jul 2013, 9:00 pm
The post DE ADVOCAAT (V) appeared first on Karel's Legal Blog. [read post]
15 Sep 2011, 7:51 pm
Beware the perils of puffery.Berry v. [read post]
17 Aug 2011, 3:19 pm
Ropes & Gray, or Daniel Alterman, counsel to Aaron Charney in Charney v. [read post]
16 Feb 2012, 5:11 pm
According to case law set by the case of: See Schrage v. [read post]
15 Feb 2012, 5:12 pm
According to case law set by the case of: See Schrage v. [read post]
