Search Results

Ghiazza , 210 A.D.3d at 1329 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). a summons was an issue decided on October 4, 2023, by the Appellate Division, Second Department, in Park The plaintiff in Park was a general contractor hired by the defendant to convert a commercial building

issues concerning fraud causes of action with which readers of this Blog are familiar: the duplication doctrine intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice. [1] To find articles related to the duplication doctrine Finnerty, 68 A.D.3d 638, 639 (1st Dept. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted), and citing Global Mins Rhone Group L.L.C., 15 N.Y.3d 147, 155 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). [12] Id. [13] 88 Blue (internal quotation marks omitted). [15] KNK Enters. Inc. v.

Parking LLC , 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 00368 (1st Dept. Plaintiff is the owner and landlord of a parking garage located in New York City (“Landlord”). Defendant 245 E. 19th Street Parking LLC (“Tenant”) entered into a written lease agreement on January onset of the Covid-19 pandemic in March 2020, HPS devised a plan and scheme to help defendant Icon Parking The doctrine of piercing the corporate veil applies equally to limited liability companies.

Every person having a right of dower or an inchoate right of dower in the real property or any part or considered void as to the omitted party.” 71-21 Loubet , 208 A.D.3d at 404 (citations and internal quotation marks Contrary to MHL's contention, the doctrine of laches cannot be used to defeat an application to vacate (Citations and internal quotation marks omitted.) (Citations and internal quotation marks omitted.)

As part of the negotiation process, plaintiff and E&M entered into a Letter of Intent (“LOI”). plaintiff] to enter the settlement.’”[18] The Court also rejected plaintiff’s reliance on the special facts doctrine .[19] The special facts doctrine “requires satisfaction of a two-prong test: that the material fact was Centro, 17 N.Y.3d at 279 (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). [15] Id. [16] Id. [17] Id. Henigar, Inc., 130 A.D.3d 514, 516 (1st Dept. 2015), lv. denied, 29 N.Y.3d 913 (2017) (internal quotation marks

[was] entitled to return to the original unit without his roommate.” [8]  The Court noted that the “doctrine 3] Vermont Teddy Bear Co. v. 538 Madison Realty Co. , 1 N.Y.3d 470, 475 (2004) (internal quotation marks Cutler , 32 A.D.3d 307, 310 (1st Dept. 2006) (the doctrine of judicial estoppel precludes a party who Ct., Kings County 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Jennifer Realty Co. , 98 N.Y.2d 144, 153 (2002) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). [17]

“Under the common-law doctrine of spoliation, when a party negligently loses or intentionally destroys County of Niagara , 137 A.D.3d 1649, 1650 (4th Dept. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted)). at 584 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Mahiques , 137 A.D.3d at 1651 (internal quotation marks omitted). Miller v. Mahiques , 137 A.D.3d at 1651 (internal quotation marks omitted); see Koehler v.

Haber The doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel embody related but distinct concepts. Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment on the merits of a claim precludes re-litigation have been “reasonably and plainly comprehended to be within the scope” of the prior dispute. 3 The doctrine "> These doctrines apply to prior arbitration proceedings, 7 as well as prior determinations by state Parke Rose Mgt. Sys. , 138 A.D.2d 575, 577 (2d Dept. 1988) 8.

Kendal on Hudson , 157 A.D.3d 746, 747 (2 nd Dep’t 2018) (Citations and internal quotation marks omitted The definiteness doctrine, however, should not be applied “rigidly” because “ ontracting parties are Because a “strict application of the definiteness doctrine could actually defeat the underlying expectations Nesbitt , 40 A.D.3d at 598 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The addition of "p/o 006.000" refers to "part of Lot 6," which lot is 7.20 acres.

recovery for post-repudiation expenditures because of his or her failure to avoid those expenses as part renders the obligor unable or apparently unable to perform without such a breach”) (internal quotation marks See also Central Park Capital Grp., LLC v. N.Y.2d at 44. [7] Id. [8] Norcon Power, 92 N.Y.2d at 463 (quoting, Crespi, The Adequate Assurances Doctrine

CPLR 2001 provides, in relevant part that: At any stage of an action, including the filing of a summons Id. at 469 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted; hyperlink added); see also Nicholas v. Martuscello, 245 A.D.3d 1055, 1058-59 (3d Dept. 2026) (quoting Park Premium Enterprises, Inc. v.

have vacated arbitral awards when an arbitrator manifestly disregards the law. 2 Importantly, the doctrine does not apply to the facts. 3 Application of the doctrine is limited. 4 It is a doctrine of last resort arbitrators to understand or apply it; and, it is more than an erroneous interpretation of the law. 6 The doctrine the governing law by refusing to apply it.” 9 The petitioner bears a heavy burden when invoking the doctrine high hurdle.’” 10 The Appellate Division, First Department recently examined the manifest disregard doctrine