|
| |
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases —
for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case —
for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more.
lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
|
| |
State Courts -
New York - January 4, 2007
|
| |
Matter of Peter GG. v. Peter HH., 98921,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT, January 4, 2007, Decided , January 4, 2007, Entered
View this case - free
|
|
|
| |
Matter of Polite v. Goord, 500100,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT, January 4, 2007, Decided , January 4, 2007, Entered
View this case - free
|
|
|
| |
Matter of Rayshawn F. v. Sandra G., 9981,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, January 4, 2007, Decided , January 4, 2007, Entered
View this case - free
|
|
|
| |
Matter of Ruparshek, 501076,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT, January 4, 2007, Decided , January 4, 2007, Entered
View this case - free
|
Overview: A grandchild who objected to the will that was offered for probate by decedent's daughter had provided evidence to create a triable issue concerning the decedent's testamentary capacity. Daughter was entitled to dismissal on the issue of undue influence because the grandchild did not provide evidence of such conduct before the will was signed.
|
|
| |
Matter of Tafari v. Selsky, 500544,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT, January 4, 2007, Decided , January 4, 2007, Entered
View this case - free
|
|
|
| |
Matter of Wendy Q. v. Richard Q., 98563,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT, January 4, 2007, Decided , January 4, 2007, Entered
View this case - free
|
Overview: Order of the family court making slight modifications to the terms of the father's visitation was affirmed because it was supported by substantial evidence. The father had asked for elimination of the week night visitation and the slight modification to the weekend visitation was in the children's best interests.
|
|
| |
Matter of Wiederspiel v. Carstens, 500159,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT, January 4, 2007, Decided , January 4, 2007, Entered
View this case - free
|
Overview: Petitioner's motion to stay arbitration proceedings between the parties, pursuant to CPLR 7503, was properly denied because petitioner had agreed, pursuant to an earlier court order, to submit all claims between the parties to arbitration and petitioner had waived his right to object to the late claims asserted by respondent.
|
|
| |
Matter of Wood v. Commissioner of Labor, 500777,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT, January 4, 2007, Decided , January 4, 2007, Entered
View this case - free
|
Overview: Substantial evidence supported the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's determination that a claimant voluntarily left his employment without good cause because he failed to take reasonable steps to protect his job and therefore was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Mihalko v. Regnaiere, 500568,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT, January 4, 2007, Decided , January 4, 2007, Entered
View this case - free
|
Overview: Verdict against a motel patron was properly set aside, and a new trial on her past and future pain and suffering was upheld, as the motel owner's claim that an earlier car accident was the sole and proximate cause of the patron's injuries was rejected. Furthermore, a new trial as to the issue of liability was not warranted by the evidence.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
