 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Dzaferovic v. Polonia, 2005-11153, (Index No. 29951/03),
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT, January 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| E.W. Howell Co. v. S.A.F. La Sala Corp., 2005-08929, 2005-11711, (Index No. 17175/90),
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT, January 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the loss of certain business records would not fatally compromise the defense or leave them without the means of establishing their defense, dismissal was not warranted; consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining, upon reargument, that a negative inference charge would be an appropriate sanction.
|
|||||
| El Paso Corp. v. New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 2005-04201, (Index No. 3436/04),
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT, January 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Property owners were not entitled to declaration that they were improperly assessed real estate transfer tax under Tax Law § 1400 et seq. on certain easements they acquired because easements provided owners with right to use the property to construct pipeline and thus constituted interest in real property for purposes of real estate transfer tax.
|
|||||
| Gadsden v. New York City Tr. Auth., 2006-00556, (Index No. 44304/98),
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT, January 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Gallagher v. Roman, 2004-07988, 2004-11090, (Index No. 14354/03),
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT, January 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Supreme court did not err in granting plaintiffs' motion vacate that portion of a prior order which directed plaintiffs to post a bond; since plaintiffs neither moved for, nor were granted, a preliminary injunction, the requirement of an undertaking was a matter of discretion, N.Y. C.P.L.R. 6312(b).
|
|||||
| Gallagher v. Roman, 2005-04181, (Index No. 14354/03),
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT, January 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Gennis v. Pomona Park Bd. of Mgrs, 2006-01687, 2006-07434, (Index No. 2572/05),
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT, January 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Supreme court should have granted branch of board of managers' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing condominium unit owners' complaint seeking to permanently enjoin board from undertaking restoration project without owners' consent; bylaws provision on which owners relied was not applicable to project at bar.
|
|||||
| Gomez v. Queens Van Plan, Inc., 2006-00705, (Index No. 1640/02),
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT, January 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 2005-08378, (Index No. 23415/02),
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT, January 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court improperly granted summary judgment declaring that carrier had to defend and indemnify insured in personal injury action because disputed issues of fact existed as to whether insured exercised reasonable diligence in determining whether coverage existed under policy and whether it observed conditions applicable to additional insureds.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
