 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Seasia D., 2005-03488,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT, January 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where attorney represented biological mother in biological father's paternity action and then represented adoptive parents in their adoption action that was contested by biological father, attorney was improperly disqualified under N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 374(6). Because attorney never represented biological father, § 374(6) was not implicated.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. Lord & Taylor, 7178,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, January 17, 2006, Decided , January 17, 2006, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in denying a store summary judgment in plaintiff's claim based on discriminatory denial of use of a public accommodation under N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2)(a); the store made a prima facie case that plaintiff's momentary detention, by asking her to pass through a security sensor a second time, had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory basis.
|
|||||
| Jopson v. Maguire, 4217-05,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, ALBANY COUNTY, January 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to dismiss an action by federal military technicians, which action was brought under the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, 38 U.S.C.S. § 4301 et seq., was denied because the allegations of improper computation of military leave stated a cause of action. Further, the action was not time-barred under any statute.
|
|||||
| La Maina v. Nathan's Famous, Inc., 2004-05326, Index No. 11511/93,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT, January 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the requirements for "vouching in" were not met because proper and timely notice was not afforded to an insurer and control of the litigation was not offered to it, it was error to grant a default judgment against the insurer and declare it a "vouched in" defendant; vacatur of the default under N.Y. C.P.L.R. 5015(a) should have been granted.
|
|||||
| Lucchese v. Silverman, 2004-02835, 2004-03940, 2004-08502, 2005-00856, Index No. 26239/95,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT, January 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Mankiewicz v. Excellent, 2004-09406, 2006-00321,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT, January 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where plaintiff rear-ended defendant's vehicle which had lost power, defendant was entitled to summary judgment in negligence case. In response to defendant's prima facie summary judgment showing, plaintiff did not show that defendant's vehicle, which allegedly was not lighted, could not be seen or that lack of illumination was defendant's fault.
|
|||||
| Martinez v. Plaza Prospect Apt., Inc., 7351,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, January 17, 2006, Decided , January 17, 2006, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Matter of Aitola v. New York City Employees' Ret. Sys., 2004-09726, Index No. 1812/04,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT, January 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As petitioner's psychiatric injuries were not job related, let alone caused by a discrete on-the-job incident, an order of the New York City Employees' Retirement System denying an application for disability retirement under N.Y. Retire. & Soc. Sec. Law § 607-b and approving it under N.Y. Retire. & Soc. Sec. Law § 605 was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Matter of C.S., [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL],
FAMILY COURT OF NEW YORK, BRONX COUNTY, January 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Probation violation petition was dismissed as charge that juvenile failed to attend school regularly was not supported by sworn nonhearsay allegations pursuant to N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act § 360.2(2). Petition was jurisdictionally defective. Matter of Markim Q. was binding as to jurisdictional requirements for filing of violation of probation petition.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
