Search Results

Importantly, the doctrine does not apply to the facts. Wein , 6 N.Y.3d at 483. Application of the doctrine is limited. Matter of Arbitration No. It is a doctrine of last resort. Duferco , 333 F.3d at 389. The doctrine is “limited to the rare occurrences of apparent egregious impropriety on the part of the The petitioner bears a heavy burden when invoking the doctrine.

noted that “ tatutes prohibiting usurious loans were enacted in the 15 th century England, became part v. 18 East 17 th Street Owners, Inc. , 79 N.Y.2d 735, 740 (1992) (citations and internal quotation marks (Citations, footnotes and internal quotation marks omitted.)  Seidel , 79 N.Y.2d at 740 (citations, footnote and internal quotation marks omitted).  imposed was found to be usurious could not save the note from being usurious (Fred Schutzman Co. v Park

One exception that practitioners often try to invoke is the continuing wrong doctrine. Under the doctrine, “where there is a series of continuing wrongs,” the statute of limitations will be If the continuing wrong doctrine applies, it “will save all claims for recovery of damages but only to The application of the continuing wrong doctrine must “be predicated on continuing unlawful acts and Thus, the doctrine is inapplicable where there is one tortious act and “continuing consequential damages

neither a fiduciary duty to provide such material non-public information …, nor does the special facts doctrine As to the latter, because there was no fiduciary duty between the parties, the special facts doctrine no-additional-representations clause in the Letter Agreement.” 21 Finally, the Court held that the special facts doctrine and the “peculiar knowledge” doctrine did not apply. 22 The Court explained that plaintiffs were “sophisticated Jana L. , 22 A.D.3d at 278 (quotation marks omitted). Schumaker v.

Rhone Group L.L.C. , 15 N.Y.3d 147, 155 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). [2]  Slip Op. at * Pier A Battery Park Assoc., LLC , 206 A.D.3d 565, 566 (1st Dept. 2022); ESBE Holdings, Inc. v.

there are circumstances where a defendant may be estopped from contesting service of process based in part one's address with the DMV, standing alone, does not automatically warrant application of the estoppel doctrine As an integral part of its analysis, the Court discussed Feinstein v. (Internal quotation marks omitted, brackets in original.)   any basis to conclude that the individual defendant “neglected to update his address with the DMV as part

In addition, under the doctrine of definiteness, the court must be able to determine what, in fact, the Application of the doctrine has not been applied rigidly. A strict application of the definiteness doctrine could actually defeat the underlying expectations of The Court also rejected plaintiff’s “reliance on the doctrine of part performance in an attempt to evade that courts do not give too much flexibility lest it renders the doctrine meaningless.

Haber To pierce the corporate veil under New York law, a plaintiff must satisfy a two‑part test and plead While application of the doctrine depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, [8]  several factors Megan Holding, LLC , 25 N.Y.3d 1, 18 (2015) (internal quotation marks omitted);  TNS Holdings , 92 N.Y

of Chancery of the State of Delaware the exclusive forum for issues governed by the internal affairs doctrine that the focus of the complaint was “on the amendments that were passed in November 2015 … which … part in the amendment to the bylaws ( i.e. , Amendment No. 4), the Court held that the internal affairs doctrine The internal affairs doctrine governs claims that, among other things, “are based upon a violation of The Court explained that “plaintiff ha set forth sufficient allegations that the amendment was part

DCL § 273(a), as amended, provides, in part, that a transfer made by a debtor is “voidable as to a creditor Parking LLC, 80 Misc. 3d 1206(A), at *6 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Quik Park 1633 Garage LLC, 160 A.D.3d 476, 477 (1st Dept. 2018). [16] Pludeman v.

performance,” which defense has been recognized for quite some time, and “ha been applied narrowly, due in part the alleged breach of a commercial lease in which the tenant raised, inter alia , the defense of the “doctrine Landlord moved for summary judgment and tenant opposed the motion “rely in part upon New York City Administrative asserted that landlord’s motion should be denied for “impossibility of performance,” which is a common law doctrine impossibility” was successfully asserted as a result of the September 11 th attacks, and stated: The doctrine

South Shore , 242 A.D.3d at 794 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Greenfield Avgush , 220 A.D.3d 850 (2 nd  Dept. 2023) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Transamerica Annuity Service Corp . , 39 N.Y.3d 399, 409 (2023) (citation and internal quotation marks (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). For example, 6243 Jericho Realty Corp. v.