Search Results
797 results found for "park doctrine"
- Duplication or No Duplication? That is the Question Decided by The Second Department
plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to pierce the corporate veil necessary to allege wrongdoing on the part pierce the corporate veil must allege facts that, if proved, establish that the party against whom the doctrine This Blog will continue to examine the duplication of claims doctrine in the two Departments to see if
- Second Department Affirms Denial of Summary Judgment in Mortgage Foreclosure Action For Failure to Demonstrate Compliance with RPAPL 1304
Yapkowitz, 199 A.D.3d 126, 131 (2nd Dep’t 2021) (some citations and internal quotation marks omitted; (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Meyerhoeffer, 219 A.D.3d 549, 551 (2nd Dep’t 2023) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); Wilmington Trust, 219 A.D.3d. at 552 (citations, internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). (citations, internal quotation marks, ellipses and brackets omitted).
- Second Department Finds Exceptional Circumstances Sufficient To Support Fraud Claim Against Insurer
In this latter scenario, where breach of contract and fraud are alleged, the duplication of claims doctrine Petrocelli Group, Inc. , 19 N.Y.3d 730, 735 (2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Co. , 144 A.D.3d 1105, 1108 (2d Dept. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Plaintiffs alleged that they priced their bid, in part, based on the increased rate that defendants had AB Oil also involved the duplication of claims doctrine.
- The Appellate Division, First Department, Reiterates in Two Cases That The Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (“FAPA”) is to Have Retroactive Application and Otherwise Passes Constitutional Muster
[Citation and internal quotation marks omitted.] (Citation and internal quotation marks omitted.) (Citation and internal quotation marks omitted.) (Citation and internal quotation marks omitted.) [Citation and internal quotation marks omitted.] Jonathan H.
- It’s Settled – When to Settle an Order Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48
§202.48 – “Submission of orders, judgments and decrees for signature”, which provides, in relevant part Funk, 89 N.Y.2d at 367 (citations, internal quotation marks, ellipses, and brackets omitted). Ahmed, 243 A.D.3d at 853 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Against this backdrop, we discuss Rosenberg v. (Citations and internal quotation marks omitted.) Jonathan H.
- Direct Claims Proceed Despite Business Judgment Rule Challenge; Derivative Claims Fail for Lack of Standing
New York law, “[a] membership interest in a limited liability company is assignable in whole or in part The First Department applied the doctrine differently than the motion court.
- Motion to Compel Arbitration Denied Where Party to Agreement Had No Authority to Sign Agreement
Park Slope U-Haul , 194 A.D.2d 142, 146 (2d Dept.1993) Id.
- Fraud, Group Pleading and Particularity
In this regard, by the court examined the group pleading doctrine and the specificity needed to maintain The court held that Intervenors did not run afoul of the group pleading doctrine. 2 The court explained
- Fraud Shorts: Pleading Deficiencies, Duplication of Claims, Respondeat Superior and Apparent Authority
elements of the claim, while others focused on the absence of particularity and the duplication of claims doctrine The Foundation asserted causes of action for fraud against PJT and defendant, Park Hill Group, LLC (“ Park Hill”), a division of PJT that provides asset advisory and fundraising services. The Foundation claimed that PJT and Park Hill were liable for Caspersen’s fraud under a theory of apparent “Thus,” held the Court, “defendants are not liable for that fraud under the doctrine of respondeat superior
- Irrationality, Manifest Disregard of The Law and The Contractual Obligation to Arbitrate Disputes
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.
- Conflicts of Interest and No-Action Clauses
that the allegations alleged by plaintiff were “insufficient to show a conflict of interest on the part informational purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice. [1] Deer Park
- The Pitfalls of the Informal Appearances and the Benefit of the Corporate Veil
Hall, 185 N.Y.S.3d 1006, 1007 (2nd Dep’t 2020) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Kleen Machine Kar Wash, Inc., 169 A.D.3d 1084, 1085 (2nd Dep’t 2019) (citations and internal quotation marks (Citations and internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis added.) (Citations and internal quotation marks omitted.) (Internal quotation marks and brackets omitted; hyperlink added.)
