Search for: "Stein v. Rosenthal"
Results 1 - 6
of 6
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Sep 2018, 4:30 am
Further, the plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts demonstrating that the defendant attorneys had the “intent to deceive the court or any party” (Judiciary Law § 487; see Schiller v Bender, Burrow, & Rosenthal, LLP, 116 AD3d 756, 759; Agostini v Sobol, 304 AD2d 395, 396). [read post]
21 Jun 2021, 3:33 am
Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint, finding that these allegations, even if proven, would not entitle the plaintiff to relief pursuant to Judiciary Law § 487 (see Sammy v Haupel, 170 AD3d at 1225-1226; Seldon v Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, 116 AD3d 490, 491 [2014]; Schiller v Bender, Burrows &… [read post]
9 Feb 2022, 6:06 am
Here, the plaintiff’s conclusory allegations were insufficient to state a cause of action alleging violation of Judiciary Law § 487 (see Klein v Rieff, 135 AD3d 910, 912 [2016]; Schiller v Bender, Burrows & Rosenthal, LLP, 116 AD3d 756, 759 [2014]). [read post]
27 Jul 2018, 4:30 am
Co. of N.Y., 98 NY2d 314, 326; see Stein v Garfield Regency Condominium, 65 AD3d 1126, 1128). [read post]
16 Jun 2011, 7:24 am
Professor Stein also facilitated a discussion on positive images of people with disabilities. [read post]
24 Aug 2019, 6:30 am
[We're moving this up, because we've received an updated version of the program. [read post]
