passengers and the representatives of the deceased passengers’ estates (“plaintiffs”) commenced an action (quoting American Tr. Ins. Co. v. Sartor , 3 N.Y.3d 71, 76 (2004). Id.

American Home Prods. Plaintiff also maintained that the parties did not partially perform the agreement nor were their actions ,” said the Court, “even if the venture was not at will, the statute of frauds would bar a cause of action

, several investors had expressed interest in such an acquisition, including, as is relevant to the action Nonetheless, over time, KSFB was convinced by Goldman Sachs’s Head of FIG Americas, that Goldman Sachs It is through this press release that KSFB contended it learned that Goldman Sachs was acting as Focus KSFB commenced the action on February 8, 2024, asserting claims for (i) breach of the NDA against Focus

for the purpose of improper tax avoidance the contract was illegal, thereby precluding any right of action The First Department reversed, noting that the identity of the actual seller was of no moment because the deal was documented in a fictional manner for the purpose of improper tax avoidance no right of action of the parties or listen to their complaints against each other, but will leave them where their own acts branches of the defendant's motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the causes of action

The SEC’s case against Celadon is the latest in a line of actions brought against companies or their attributed to the trucks in its internal bookkeeping – greatly exceeded the amount the trucks could have actually the value that Celadon was carrying on its books for a truck was more than double what it could have actually

shall be “full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action that involve the conveyance of legal advice offered by the nonlawyer, except when the nonlawyer is acting Product Doctrine The attorney work product doctrine protects those materials prepared by an attorney, acting The action was brought by West 87 LP, on its own behalf and as assignee of QSB 267 Property Co. privileged and protected “by virtue of the entities’ common legal interests in the prosecution of th action

On September 10, 2021, Plaintiff commenced the action by filing a summons and complaint (the “Complaint “A contract will be treated as abandoned when one party acts in a manner inconsistent with the existence Its own action in writing that letter was an affirmative step inconsistent with enforcing its rights claim that is “imposed by law where there has been no agreement or expression of assent, by word or act

parties involved and who was the real party in interest with regard to the allegations asserted in the action The Court rejected the argument, holding that Kapitus had standing to bring the action in its own right Thus, Kapitus is a “real party in interest,” entitled to maintain this action in its own name…. Defendants argued that plaintiff lacked the capacity to bring the action, claiming that the complaint or special proceeding on any such contract, act or omission.’”

, 2024) ( here ), the Appellate Division, First Department addressed legal principles and causes of action complaint should be dismissed on the grounds that the applicable statute of limitations barred the action , the complaint failed to state a cause of action, the fraud claim was not pleaded with the requisite Plaintiff further argued that since he stated a claim for fraud, the action (which was commenced in June property’; that plaintiff gave the money to defendant ‘in furtherance of the parties’ agreement to act

Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the denial of summary judgment in a wrongful termination action abusive or vulgar language; interfering with others in the performance of their duties; engaging in acts Plaintiff commenced the action, which, as amended, alleged (1) defendant’s breach of contract for not ‘cause.’ ” Defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s breach of contract cause of action The Court rejected that framing, focusing instead on the conduct actually cited as the basis for discharge

liable under the faithless servant doctrine only if the employee has usurped a corporate opportunity or actively Nichtberger involved an action to recover monies allegedly owed to Plaintiff by the Corporate Defendants employee who embezzles money from his employer, forfeits all compensation after the first faithless act Any act that can give rise to a claim for breach of fiduciary duty will trigger the doctrine.  In a replevin action, the plaintiff seeks the return of property, not money damages. Genger v.

The parties negotiated a proposed Sales Agent Agreement pursuant to which defendant would act as the Plaintiffs asserted five causes of action for: (1) breach of fiduciary duty (asserted by MEP II); (2) Defendant moved to dismiss, contending that the first, second, third, and fifth causes of action should