CPLR § 327, which codified the common law doctrine of forum non conveniens , a court may dismiss an action where “in the interest of substantial justice the action should be heard in another forum.” Plaintiffs later withdrew the federal action.  Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed an action in state court, asserting similar allegations and causes of action when “in the interest of substantial justice the action should be heard in another forum.”

Once service of process is effectuated, the defendant has a certain amount of time to appear in the action in which, once liability has been established, there can be no dispute as to the amount due, as in actions plaintiff does not take proceedings for the entry of default within a year, the court “must” dismiss the action demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its delay in appearing and answering, and a meritorious defense to the action Valtech Research, Inc. , 73 A.D.3d 686 (2 nd Dep’t 2010), a negligence action, the plaintiff obtained

Under the agreement, defendant was entitled to reconcile the daily payment amount to better reflect its actual Plaintiff filed suit claiming, among other causes of action, breach of contract. sufficiently bind the individual defendant, and that there were issues of fact related to how much money was actually Obligations Law § 5-501, usury only applies to a “loan or forbearance of any money, goods or things in action

Thereafter, on November 26, 2018, FINRA filed an enforcement action against LekUS and Samuel Lek (the “FINRA Action”). The FINRA Action alleged, in pertinent part, that LekUS failed to investigate suspicious activity with in which Elek was actively trading CBIS shares through his account at LekUK. Petitioners initiated the action, pursuant to CPLR § 7503(b) and the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C

meetings Purchase more shares or sell your shares Vote in annual or general meetings Sue for wrongful acts

Sometimes such transfers are made with actual intent to defraud.  Creditor Law (the “DCL”) – and New York’s recently enacted version of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act In the complaint, Sarfati asserted eight causes of action. We examine the Court’s decision as to the third through eighth causes of action. As to the eighth cause of action, the Court granted the motion because Sarfati “established actual intent

In 2015, some nine years after the filing of the satisfaction, the lender commenced an action by which

I imagine this pause will be short as individuals continue to find meaningful, once-in-a-lifetime, activities “In the event of an injury during extreme activities, hotels and operators should assume that litigation Hotels and operators should discuss the intended activities with their brokers and/or the carriers themselves

Not in a comedic way, but in a way that defies expectations about what is needed to bring a cause of action Sometimes this is manifested in the quantum of evidence needed to bring an action and survive a pre-answer Other times, it is manifested in the capacity or standing of the plaintiff to commence the action. . 2 The injury-in-fact requirement necessitates a showing that the party has “an actual legal stake Defendant moved to dismiss, claiming, among other things, plaintiff lacked standing to bring the action

Freiberger In most situations, the contemplated goal of a mortgage foreclosure action is the sale of been simplified significantly for the purpose of this discussion.>  Plaintiff commenced a foreclosure action Between the time of the foreclosure sale and the time to close, a quiet title action was commenced against one of the two lots comprising the Property and against which, the plaintiff in the quiet title action The complaint in the quiet title action was dismissed, but a notice of appeal was filed. 

a sealing order should clearly be predicated upon a sound basis or legitimate need to take judicial action In particular, Melody claimed that the identities and investment activities of certain investors, i.e underlying dispute between the parties, and because the investors in Melody were simply “bystanders” to the action finding that Melody “demonstrated good cause to narrowly redact the identities of the investors, their activities would reveal their “approach and structure of certain licensing arrangements related to their business activities

Plaintiffs commenced action against Carnell “alleging that it was grossly negligent in its inspection