XII), unclaimed or abandoned property in the possession, custody or control of the United States of America In March of 2012, the GC commenced an action to foreclose its lien (the “Lien Foreclosure Action”).  Further, at the time the Turnover was made, the parties were still actively litigating the Lien Foreclosure Action and the Clerk was aware of the name and address of each and every litigant and their respective At the time the Return Motion was made, the Lien Foreclosure Action was still active and the Deposit

Plaintiffs commenced the action alleging, inter alia , claims for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud. Plaintiffs commenced the action on May 27, 2014, seeking, inter alia , dissolution of the partnership Manojlovic testified in his deposition that he consulted with an attorney to determine what action should Plaintiffs point to defendants’ actions regarding the Seneca Trail property as one basis for the fraud claim but, as discussed, a question of fact exists concerning the propriety of those actions.

purportedly printed on the reverse side of the proposal page, defendant moved to dismiss the New York action

In mortgage foreclosure actions, and other actions in which a party is suing on a promissory note (or is in possession of the underlying Note in order to establish that it has standing to prosecute the action Brody Court further recognized that standing is conferred on a plaintiff in a mortgage foreclosure action “when it is the holder or assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced.” Because possession of a Note is a critical component of a mortgage foreclosure action (or actions involving

Since the early 20th century, a plaintiff alleging fraud in New York can recover only the actual pecuniary 236 N.Y. 132, 134 (1923)), but also pain and suffering damages that are often sought in other tort actions Department, affirmed the dismissal of fraud-based claims because the plaintiff failed to allege an “actual too speculative to support a recovery, since a plaintiff cannot be compensated under a fraud cause of action Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. , 29 N.Y.3d 137, 142 (2017) (internal quotation marks omitted).

complaint to streamline litigation in situations where the statute is applicable – provides: When an action “CPLR 3213 begins with the seemingly straightforward – though stringent – requirement that the action CPLR 3213 treatment, it is incumbent upon the appellant to show that the accounts stated, on which its action

The Court explained: The written retainer agreement provided that the plaintiff would act as a consultant

which the Court recognized the implied certification theory as “a basis for liability” in False Claims Act Bishop , the relators, Robert Kraus and Paul Bishop (together, the “relators”), brought a qui tam action Because the Federal Reserve Act did not expressly condition Fed loans on compliance, it was irrelevant

DuBow filed an action claiming breach of the 2007 Agreement, failure to pay wages under the New York

conferences and failed to perfect service of their amended complaint, resulting in the dismissal of the action On July 14, 2016, Nix and DNA Lab filed a diversity jurisdiction action in the Southern District of New tortious interference with business relations, defamation, and violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

Acting on this information, Vidokle asked Saul to “wait” on moving forward with the execution of a formal

contract with the defendant, the Dormitory Authority of The State of New York (the “Authority”), to act Thereafter, Ridley commenced an action for, inter alia , breach of contract, seeking damages representing In so doing, the Court rejected Ridley’s argument that the Authority’s actual knowledge of the ceiling