Search for: "Shah v Exxis, Inc."
Results 1 - 7
of 7
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Aug 2023, 5:30 am
We Transport, Inc. [read post]
28 Aug 2023, 5:30 am
We Transport, Inc. [read post]
21 Aug 2019, 4:31 am
“If the defendant meets this initial burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to raise a question of fact as to whether the statute of limitations has been tolled, an exception to the limitations period is applicable, or the plaintiff actually commenced the action within the applicable limitations period” (Amrusi v Nwaukoni, 155 AD3d 814, 816 [2017] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Shah v Exxis, Inc., 138 AD3d 970, 971 [2016]). [read post]
11 Mar 2022, 4:02 am
Payments to a third party can be used to show performance in a breach of contract action (see Shah v Exxis, Inc., 138 AD3d 970, 972-973). [read post]
2 Jul 2021, 4:56 am
“”On a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court must accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” (Shah v Exxis, Inc., 138 AD3d 970, 971). [read post]
5 Sep 2019, 4:33 am
“On a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court must accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” (Shah v Exxis, Inc., 138 AD3d 970, 971 [2016]; see Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 4:40 am
“If the defendant meets this initial burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to raise a question of fact as to whether the statute of limitations has been tolled, an exception to the limitations period is applicable, or the plaintiff actually commenced the action within the applicable limitations period” (Amrusi v Nwaukoni, 155 AD3d 814, 816 [2017] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Shah v Exxis, Inc., 138 AD3d 970, 971 [2016]). [read post]
