Search for: "U S Dept of Defense"
Results 101 - 120
of 227
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 May 2019, 4:25 am
Fine Art Ltd. v Lacher, 115 AD3d 600, 601 (1st Dept 2014) (finding that “[p]laintiffs’ claims of excessive billing and related conduct, which actions [were] not alleged to have adversely affected their claims or defenses in the underlying action, [did] not state a claim for legal malpractice”); see also Gottlieb, Rackman & Reisman, P. [read post]
30 Dec 2013, 3:11 am
Ruggiero, 2013 NY Slip Op 31955(U) (Sup Ct Suffolk County July 29, 2013), in which Suffolk County Justice Emily Pines opted for one appraiser’s income approach over the other appraiser’s market approach in a stock valuation contest involving a family-owned kosher deli. [read post]
14 Nov 2008, 7:38 am
Co., 2008 NY Slip Op 31987(U) (Sup. [read post]
29 Oct 2010, 2:35 am
.;2010 NY Slip Op 32991(U);October 12, 2010 Supreme Court, Nassau County;Judge: Anthony L. [read post]
3 Nov 2011, 2:35 am
Defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) is also denied inasmuch as defendant's affidavit and the documents attached thereto do not definitively and "conclusively establish[ ] a defense to the asserted action as a matter of law" (Leon, 84 NY2d at 88); the documentary evidence merely raises numerous issues of fact, rather than finally dispose of them (see Bernstein v Oppenheim & Co., P.C., 160 AD2d 428, 435 [1st Dept 1990]). [read post]
13 Jan 2009, 5:55 am
Slip Op. 50018(U)(N.Y.Sup. [read post]
6 Feb 2012, 3:00 am
Defendant raises a series of defenses, including res judicata and collateral estoppel. [read post]
31 Jan 2007, 2:31 am
Slip Op. 50119(U)(N.Y.Sup. [read post]
7 Feb 2022, 3:45 am
” “The Court further finds that the part of plaintiff’s motion seeking to dismiss defendants’ first counterclaim (and sixth defense) alleging legal malpractice, as being time-barred by the three-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 214[6]; Stewart v Berger, 137 AD3d 1103 [2nd Dept 2016]), is granted, except to the extent that the first counterclaim seeks to offset as a shield for equitable recoupment purposes, a sum equal to an award… [read post]
31 Mar 2020, 2:30 pm
Both of these adjustments are based on increases in the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers (CPI-U) published by the United States Department of Labor. [read post]
1 May 2023, 7:00 am
The post The Impact of Ohio’s New Distracted Driving Law on Traffic Stops & Criminal Charges appeared first on Criminal Defense Attorneys - LHA. [read post]
1 Dec 2008, 7:35 am
The Third Department stated: "We do not agree with the arbitrator's conclusion that petitioner's position, that its insured vehicle was not used 'principally...for hire,' is an affirmative defense. [read post]
19 Dec 2017, 12:55 pm
Garris, 2017 NY Slip Op. 51587(U) (1st Dept. [read post]
7 Sep 2022, 5:32 am
And so even if there was some malpractice, successor counsel had a chance to address it (Davis v Cohen & Gresser, LLP, 160 AD3d 484, 487, 74 NYS3d 534 [1st Dept 2018] [dismissing a legal malpractice claim where a successor counsel had sufficient time to protect plaintiff’s interests and failed to do so]). [read post]
15 Aug 2020, 4:29 am
Slip Op. 50825(U)(Fam Ct.,2020) the Court observed that the purpose of a forensic evaluation in court for purposes of therapeutic interventions Cthat is the parents= responsibility. [read post]
28 Aug 2023, 4:59 am
New York County Surrogate Rita Mella tackles both of these questions in Matter of McKelvey (2023 NY Slip Op 32680(U) [Sur Ct, NY County Aug. 3, 2023]). [read post]
8 Nov 2016, 3:13 am
Hunter, 2016 NY Slip Op 51558(U) (1st Dept. 2016), the defendant pleaded to Third Degree Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument, NY PL 170.20. [read post]
8 Nov 2016, 3:13 am
Hunter, 2016 NY Slip Op 51558(U) (1st Dept. 2016), the defendant pleaded to Third Degree Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument, NY PL 170.20. [read post]
17 Aug 2011, 2:48 am
Schulman, 2 A.D.3d 355, 358 (1st Dept. 2003). [read post]
7 Aug 2019, 4:17 am
Thus, the doctrine is not applicable to a client’s or patient’s continuing general relationship with a lawyer or physician involving only routine contact for miscellaneous legal representation or medical care, unrelated to the matter upon which the allegations of malpractice are predicated. [read post]
