Search Results

non-fiduciary, arm’s length transaction between a landlord and tenant.” 6 Similarly, in Dembeck v. 220 Central Park Park So., LLC , 33 A.D.3d 491, 492 (1st Dept. 2006). Sehera Food Servs. Inc. v. Empire State Bldg.

(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).  See also Emigrant Mortgage Co., Inc. v. Marks Avenue Condo. v. (Citations and internal quotation marks omitted.)  (Citations and internal quotation marks omitted.)

Besemer, 131 A.D.3d 1047, 1049 (2nd Dep’t 2015) (citations, internal quotation marks and brackets omitted (Citations and internal quotation marks omitted, hyperlink added.] Jonathan H.

damages are sustained.”[9] This is so because, “absent either repudiation or removal, the aggrieved part Blavatnik, 144 A.D.3d 24, 28 (1st Dept. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). [8] Id 12 N.Y.3d at 140. [10] Matter of George, 194 A.D.3d 1290, 1293 (3d Dept. 2021) (internal quotation marks citation omitted). [11] Matter of Steinberg, 183 A.D.3d 1067, 1071 (3d Dept. 2020) (internal quotation marks (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). [22] See Shalik v.

The doctrine does not make a foreign State judgment a judgment in the forum State. The doctrine establishes a rule of evidence, however, which requires recognition of the foreign judgment

Constitution or the Right to Substantive and Procedural Due Process Under the New York Constitution – Part Both motions were denied by the district court, which held, in part, that: there was a disputed issue (Citation and internal quotation marks omitted). (Citations and internal quotation marks omitted.)  (Citation, internal quotation marks and brackets omitted.)

Forum non conveniens is a common law doctrine in which a court may dismiss an action where another forum In New York, the doctrine is codified in CPLR §327(a). In New York, the seminal case discussing the doctrine is Islamic Republic of Iran v. Takeaway The forum non conveniens doctrine, codified in CPLR § 327, permits a court to dismiss an It is a flexible doctrine that a court should apply in its sound discretion based upon the facts and

Importantly, the doctrine does not apply to the facts. , 6 N.Y.3d at 483. Application of the doctrine is limited. , 867 F.2d 130, 133 (2d Cir. 1989). It is a doctrine of last resort. , 333 F.3d at 389. The petitioner bears a heavy burden when invoking the doctrine. In 2008, the United States Supreme Court addressed the doctrine.

Zubli , 219 A.D.3d 1495, 1497 (2d Dept. 2023) (internal quotation marks omitted). Gazebo Hort., Inc. , 117 A.D.3d 692, 693 (2d Dept. (2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). 1357 Tarrytown Time Warner Cable, Inc. , 83 A.D.3d 750, 752 (2d Dept. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Meridian Capital Group, LLC, 201 A.D.3d 909, 911 (2d Dept. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted).

absurdity has been identified or the contract would otherwise be unenforceable either in whole or in part As to full debt recourse liability, the Guaranty stated, in relevant part: the Debt shall be fully recourse Mechanical Parking Sys. , 283 A.D.2d 268 (1st Dept. 2001), lv. dismissed , 96 N.Y.2d 937 (2001), appeal Giancontieri , 77 N.Y.2d 157, 160, 162 (1990) (internal quotation marks omitted). Cardtronics, LP , 54 A.D.3d 137, 140 (1st Dept 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Id.

The policy provided, in relevant part, that an insured “may not bring a legal action against” the insurer allegation here is based on facts—massive structural damage due to fire—rather than on a legal proposition, doctrine

Community Parking Inc. , 108 A.D.3d 487 (1st Dept. 2013); Allied Irish Banks, P.L.C. v.