Search for: "Zanani v Schvimmer" Results 1 - 5 of 5
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Apr 2021, 3:05 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Defendants’ vague assertion that they “raised” the issue with plaintiffs is insufficient to create an issue of fact (Kucker & Bruh, LLP v Sendowski, 136 AD3d 475, 476 [1st Dept 2016]; Zanani v Schvimmer, 50 AD3d 445, 446 [1st Dept 2008]). [read post]
5 Jul 2011, 1:47 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Trucking Co., 59 NY2d 649, 650; Yao Ping Tang v Grand Estate, LLC, 77 AD3d 822; Zanani v Schvimmer, 75 AD3d 546, 547; Li Gang Ma v Hong Guang Hu, 54 AD3d 312, 313). [read post]
15 May 2012, 2:43 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Trucking Co., 59 NY2d 649, 650; Yao Ping Tang v Grand Estate, LLC, 77 AD3d 822; Zanani v Schvimmer, 75 AD3d 546, 547; Li Gang Ma v Hong Guang Hu, 54 AD3d 312, 313). [read post]
29 Jul 2011, 6:21 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Sys., 235 AD2d 979, 980 [1997]; see also Zanani v Schvimmer, 50 AD3d 445, 446 [2008]). [read post]