|
| |
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 3, 2006
|
| |
Portillo v. 137 E. 110th St., LLC, 7461,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, January 3, 2006, Decided , January 3, 2006, Entered
View this case - free
|
|
|
| |
Saphir Intl., SA v. UBS Painewebber Inc, 7054,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, January 3, 2006, Decided , January 3, 2006, Entered
View this case - free
|
Overview: Investment company's fraud complaint was improperly dismissed on statute of limitations grounds under N.Y. C.P.L.R. 213(8), 203(g) because issues existed as to when and whether the investment company had sufficient information from which it could have been reasonably inferred that defendants participated in a "pump and dump" stock fraud scheme.
|
|
| |
|
| |
SportsChannel Assoc. v. Sterling Mets, L.P., 6916-, 6917,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, January 3, 2006, Decided , January 3, 2006, Entered
View this case - free
|
|
|
| |
Stern v. City of New York, 7452,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, January 3, 2006, Decided , January 3, 2006, Entered
View this case - free
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Thomas v. 14 Rollins St. Realty Corp., 7302,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, January 3, 2006, Decided , January 3, 2006, Entered
View this case - free
|
Overview: Plaintiff's treating physician was properly precluded from testifying in a personal injury case regarding plaintiff's need for future knee replacement surgery because such surgery was not mentioned in the bill of particulars, an expert disclosure statement, or medical records.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Vento v. City of New York, 7464 Index 102640/93,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, January 3, 2006, Decided , January 3, 2006, Entered
View this case - free
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
