DECISION AND ORDER Background
|
|
- Charity Cross
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 At a Commercial Division Part 1, of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of Kings, at the Courthouse, at Civic Center, Brooklyn, New York, on the 7th day of October, P R E S E N T: HON. CAROLYN E. DEMAREST, Justice X THE AUTO COLLECTION INC., et al., DECISION AND Plaintiffs, ORDER - against - Index No. 7847/09 CHRISTOPHER PINKOW, et al., Defendants X The following papers numbered 1 to 6 read on this motion: Papers Numbered Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause/Petition/ 1 Cross Motion and Affidavits(Affirmations)Annexed Opposing Affidavits (Affirmations) 4 Reply Affidavits(Affirmations) 5,6 Other Papers (Memoranda of Law) (Statement of Undisputed Facts) Defendants Gleb Sakhontchik, US Autoland LLC, Oleg Sakhontchik and LOV Motors Inc., move for summary judgment, pursuant to CPLR 3212, to dismiss the complaint. Background The Auto Collection Inc. ( Auto Collection ) is a New York corporation licensed by the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles to operate an automobile dealership. Auto Collection is engaged in the retail sale of motor vehicles. Steven Lever ( Steven ) and Joshua Lever ( Joshua ) are members of Auto Collection. US Autoland LLC ( Autoland ) and LOV Motors, Inc. ( LOV ), are auto exporters engaged in the business of purchasing high-end automobiles and other vehicles and re-selling them to its customers located in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. They are not licensed by the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles. Gleb Sakhontchik ( Gleb ) is a member of Autoland and Oleg Sakhontchik ( Oleg ) is an authorized representative of LOV. 3 2
2 There are three civil actions currently pending against Auto Collection in the Kings County Supreme Court related to the present action (L&L Auto Distributors & Suppliers, Inc. v The Auto Collection, Inc., index No /08; Azte, Inc. v The Auto Collection, Inc., index No /08; US Autoland LLC v The Auto Collection Inc., index No /09) and four related civil actions against Auto Collection that have been discontinued by stipulation (Boomerang Auto, Inc. v The Auto Collection, Inc., index No /08; Oleksandr Butenko v The Auto Collection, Inc., index No /09; FT&T Consulting Inc. v The Auto Collection Inc., index No /08; Royal Auto Collection Inc. v The Auto Collection Inc., index No /08). This action was filed in Nassau County on November 25, 2008, after the seven civil actions were commenced. 1 A criminal action, in which a sealing order has been issued, is also currently pending in Nassau County against one of the Auto Collection s employees, defendant Christopher Pinkow ( Pinkow ) (People v Pinkow and the Auto Collection Inc., Indictment No. 698/10). The court takes judicial notice that Pinkow plead guilty to a scheme to defraud in the second degree on September 21, 2011 and the sentencing is scheduled for January 5, The Auto Collection was named as a defendant in the criminal action, but its status in that action is unclear. 2 All of these actions share common fact patterns and claims. Specifically, all of these actions allege that a luxury motor vehicle or several luxury motor vehicles were purchased from Auto Collection by an import-export company in the business of buying motor vehicles and reselling them for export to Russia, or an Eastern European country, that Auto Collection demanded pre-payment, the purchaser pre-paid Auto Collection, either a deposit or in full, and the motor vehicle or vehicles were never delivered to it, nor was the purchase price refunded. In each action, Auto Collection has argued that its employee, Pinkow, defrauded Auto Collection and its members without Steven or Joshua s knowledge or participation. In the present action, Auto Collection alleges, inter alia, that the defendants 1 On February 25, 2009, Justice Warshawsky of the New York State Supreme Court, Nassau County, changed the venue to Kings County and ordered the transfer of the related civil actions to Kings County except for Butenko which was later transferred to Kings County. 2 Auto Collection alleges that they were dismissed from the criminal action, however, this has not been confirmed by the court.
3 created a scheme to defraud the Auto Collection through a pattern of racketeering activities. 3 Auto Collection alleges that their employee, Pinkow, was working for defendant Boris Kotlyarsky ( Kotlyarsky ) and that Pinkow arranged for a number of the defendants to act as good faith purchasers who then wired Auto Collection money as advance payments for particular automobiles. Auto Collection alleges that once the payments were received and deposited into the Auto Collection s bank account, Pinkow would manipulate the funds in an old-fashioned criminal pyramid and/or criminal kiting scheme and then divert the delivery of vehicles for his own benefit or the benefit of the defendants. Auto Collection alleges that the vehicles were actually delivered to the purchasers for export to Russia and [t]o further exacerbate the scheme, and to lend an air of credibility to the same, several defendants have filed civil actions against [Auto Collection] seeking to recover damages for breach of contract, as well as having filed complaints with the Nassau County Police Department and Nassau County District Attorney s Office, Commercial frauds and Criminal Enterprise Bureau. The tenth cause of action of the complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in various racketeering activities including, mail fraud pursuant to 18 USC 1341, wire fraud pursuant to 18 USC 1343, and tampering with a witness or victim pursuant to 18 USC The mail fraud allegations in the complaint are raised in paragraphs 307 and 308: 307. Incident to the institution of fraudulent civil proceedings in King Supreme Court, the defendants in this second RICO enterprise, through their counsel, caused legal process to proceed to plaintiffs herein, through the US mail The mailing of legal process, through the US mail system constituted mail fraud pursuant to 18 USC 1341 in light of: (1) the scheme or artifice to defraud or obtain money by means of false 3 It is noted that the plaintiffs allege in the complaint that two separate RICO enterprises, involving the various defendants, were engaged in racketeering activities against Auto Collection. The only motion that is before this court involves the second RICO enterprise, described in the tenth cause of action, which includes defendants Pinkow, Autoland, LOV, Oleg, Gleb, Boris Kotlyarsky, L&L Auto Distributors & Suppliers Inc., Nikolay Bergunker, A1A Auto Leasing Inc., Viktor Shulman, Boomerang Auto Inc., Konstantin Radchenko, Royal Auto Collection Inc., Anatoly Zlatokrasov, Epelbaum Teodor, Alex Brioukhov, AZTE, Inc., ABR Consulting Group Corp., Budget Autos LLC, Vladimir Lysogorsky, and FT&T Consulting Inc. Stipulations of discontinuance were entered between the plaintiffs and defendants Boomerang, Shulman, FT&T Consulting, and Lysogorsky herein on the same date as the FT&T and Boomerang actions were discontinued.
4 pretenses and representations; (2) use of the mail for the purpose of executing the scheme; and (3) the defendants in this second RICO enterprise possessed the specific intent to defraud plaintiffs by devising, participating and/or abetting the scheme. The wire fraud allegations in the complaint are raised in paragraphs 312 through 314: 312. Pinkow would likewise receive and render false transaction confirmations to these defendants by facsimile, including the fraudulent confirmations and acknowledgments In addition, incident to the institution of a fraudulent civil proceeding in King Supreme Court, these defendants, through their counsel, caused legal process or proceed [sic] to plaintiffs herein, through electronic mail and facsimile The sending of facsimiles through the United States interstate wiring system and by having counsel send legal process by facsimile and electronic mail constituted wire fraud pursuant to 18 USC 1343 in light of: (1) the scheme or artifice to defraud or obtain money by means of false pretenses and representations; (2) use of the wire for the purpose of executing the scheme; and (3) Boris/L&L and Pinkow possessed the specific intent to defraud plaintiffs by devising, participating and/or abetting the scheme. The tampering with a witness or victim allegations in the complaint are raised in paragraphs 316, 318, and 320: 316. Specifically, these defendants initiated a criminal investigation against the plaintiffs with the Crimes Against Property Section of the Nassau County District Attorney s Office On the civil end, these defendants have initiated various civil actions against the plaintiffs herein as more thorough [sic] detailed earlier herein claiming monetary damages for the purported nondelivery of at least 15 vehicles. Pinkow has provided a false and fraudulent affidavit attacking the plaintiffs for the benefit of these defendants The initiation of the civil and criminal actions constitutes tampering with a witness or victim or informant pursuant to 18 USC In support of its summary judgment motion, Gleb attests that on March 15, 2008, he went to the premises of Auto Collection and saw two vehicles that Autoland intended to purchase, a 2008 Infinity FX35 and a 2008 Lexus RX330. According to Gleb, on
5 March 17, 2008, a check from Autoland, payable to Auto collection for $75,000, was delivered to Auto Collection and the check was deposited by Matt Rubino ( Rubino ), an employee of Auto Collection. However, in his deposition testimony, Gleb acknowledged that he never met Steven, Joshua, Rubino, Bryan Flynn ( Flynn ), an employee of Auto Collection, or Pinkow. 4 Defendants allege that the cars were never delivered and the money was not refunded. Oleg attests that, on April 8, 2008, as an authorized representative of LOV, he delivered three checks to Auto Collection on behalf of LOV for the purchase of three cars after seeing the cars at the Auto Collection premises. The first check, for $60,000, included a description of a car ( LX ), a VIN number for a particular car, and it was signed by Oleg. The second check, for $20,000, included a description of a car ( LX ) and a VIN number, but it was unsigned. The third check, for $20,000, included a description of a car ( LX ) without a VIN number 5 and it is signed by Oleg. Oleg states that he personally delivered the checks to Auto Collection, however, it is not clear who, if anyone, from Auto Collection received these checks. All three checks were also deposited into Auto Collection s account by Rubino. Defendants claim that the cars were never delivered and the money was not refunded. These statements are identical to the allegations that form the basis of their complaint in the US Autoland v Auto Collection action ( Autoland Action ). Defendants deny that a scheme to defraud the plaintiffs ever existed. Defendants state that they did not do business with the other defendants and did not know the other defendants prior to the commencement of the actions at issue. Defendants allege that they contacted a detective in Nassau County when they learned that several weeks after the checks were delivered and deposited, the Auto Collection s place of business was closed and there were no cars in the lot. Defendants argue that this complaint is a complete fabrication concocted by the Plaintiff s counsel as a strategy to discourage the 4 Although not addressed in the current papers, the court takes judicial notice that in the US Autoland v Auto Collection action, Gleb alleges that he gave the $75,000 check to Geeniy who then transferred the check to Auto Collection. However, Gleb was not able to further identify Geeniy and Gleb indicated that he was no longer in contact with Geeniy. 5 The legibility of all three checks is poor and it is noted that there is additional writing on the third check. However, it does not appear to be a VIN number.
6 legitimate claimants. Defendants move for summary judgment dismissing the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3212, claiming that after an adequate time for discovery, plaintiffs cannot establish the elements essential to their claims. Further, defendants argue that the plaintiffs failed to plead a legally cognizable RICO claim, and have failed to adequately describe and cannot prove any mail or wire fraud that would constitute the predicate acts required under the RICO statute as to the defendants. Although defendants motion is addressed to the entire complaint, the focus of the motion is the RICO claim contained in the tenth cause of action. Discussion In order to obtain summary judgment, the movant must establish its cause of action or defense sufficiently to warrant a court s directing judgment in its favor as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; CPLR 3212 [b]). Where the moving party has established prima facie that it is entitled to summary judgment, the party opposing the motion must demonstrate the existence of a factual issue requiring a trial of the action by admissible evidence, not mere conjecture, suspicion, or speculation (Fotiatis v Cambridge Hall Tenants Corp., 70 AD3d 631, 632 [2d Dept 2010]). Bare conclusory allegations are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment (Seyfried v Greenspan, 92 AD2d 563 [2d Dept 1983]). Although hearsay evidence may be considered in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, it is by itself insufficient to defeat such a motion (Raux v City of Utica, 59 AD3d 984, 985 [4th Dept 2009]). The parties competing contentions are viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion (Marine Midland Bank, N.A. v Dino & Artie s Automatic Transmission Co., 168 AD2d 610 [2d Dept 1990]). In support of the motion, defendants provided affidavits from Oleg and Gleb in which they describe the cars that were the subject of the transactions, provided proof of the payments to Auto Collection by LOV and Autoland 6, explained the basis for their 6 Defendants provided copies of the checks as well as deposition testimony by Rubino in which he admitted to signing and depositing the checks into Auto Collection s account. Defendants also referenced deposition testimony from Joshua that confirmed that the checks
7 reporting of the alleged impropriety to the Nassau County Police Department, as well as their commencement of the civil litigation, denied any prior knowledge of the other alleged participants comprising the purported Second RICO Enterprise, noted that other defendants testified at their respective depositions that they had not done business with Oleg, Gleb, LOV, or Autoland, and denied receipt of any of the cars at issue from Auto Collection. Further, defendants argue that the plaintiffs have failed to describe any predicate acts or provide any testimony or documentary evidence that supports the allegation that defendants mailed any documents or wired anything to the plaintiffs, other than documents served in the course of the civil litigation, after nearly two years of discovery. The plaintiffs tenth cause of action alleges RICO violations under 18 USC 1962(c). Pursuant to 18 USC 1962(c), [i]t shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt. The term racketeering activity is defined in 18 USC 1961(1)(B) as any act which is indictable under, among other statutes, 18 USC 1341 (relating to mail fraud), 18 USC 1343 (relating to wire fraud), and 18 USC 1512 (relating to tampering with a witness, victim or an informant). Allegations of predicate mail and wire fraud acts [must] state the contents of the communications, who was involved, [and] where and when they took place, and [must] explain why they were fraudulent (Spool v World Child Int l Adoption Agency, 520 F3d 178, 185 [2d Cir 2008], quoting Mills v Polar Molecular Corp., 12 F3d 1170, 1176 [2d Cir 1993]). Several district courts have concluded that serving litigation documents by mail (which analysis the Court determines applies equally to litigation documents transmitted by wire) cannot constitute mail (or wire) fraud (Warnock v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2008 US Dist LEXIS 81507, *21 [SD Miss 2008], citing Auburn Med. Ctr. were deposited into Auto Collection s account. While the cited Joshua Lever deposition transcript pages appear to have been mistakenly omitted from the papers, Auto Collection has not contested the deposit of the checks into its account and the court takes judicial notice that Joshua confirmed the depositing of the checks into Auto Collection s account in an affidavit in support of Auto Collection s summary judgment motion in the Autoland Action.
8 v Andrus, 9 F Supp 2d 1291 [MD Ala 1998]; Von Bulow v Von Bulow, 657 F Supp 1134 [SDNY 1987]; see also Nakahara v Bal, 1998 US Dist LEXIS 825, * 25 [SDNY 1998]; B.V. Optische Industrie De Oude Delft v Hologic, Inc., 909 F Supp 162 [SDNY 1995]). After the District Court in Warnock declined to dismiss a RICO cause of action where plaintiff alleged that the scheme involved the filing of frivolous lawsuits (Warnock, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81507), in its denial of a motion for reconsideration, the court emphasized that the plaintiff alleged that defendants also used mail and wire fraud to transmit correspondence and other documents related both to the individual lawsuits and to the overall scheme to deprive plaintiff and others of their property by dishonest means (Warnock v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2008 US Dist LEXIS , *8 [S.D. Miss. 2008]). However, the court subsequently dismissed the RICO cause of action on summary judgment when the plaintiff was unable to demonstrate any correspondence or materials, other than litigation materials, to support the RICO allegations (Warnock v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS [SD Miss 2011]). Defendants motion to dismiss the RICO cause of action must be granted as the plaintiffs allegations of mail fraud, wire fraud, and tampering with a witness or victim are, in fact, merely artfully pleaded claims for malicious prosecution and cannot form the basis of a RICO claim. [M]alicious prosecution may not constitute a RICO predicate act and plaintiffs have not alleged or, after two years of discovery, demonstrated any use of the mail or wire by defendants for purposes other than serving litigation documents (Von Bulow, 657 F Supp at 1143; see Warnock, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81507, *22 [SD Miss 2008]; see Auburn, 9 F Supp 2d at 1297 [M.D. Ala 1998]; Nakahara, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 825 at * 25 [SDNY 1998]; see also B.V. Optische, 909 F Supp at 170). To the extent that plaintiffs allege that fraudulent wire confirmations and acknowledgments were received and rendered by the defendants, plaintiffs have failed in their burden as no proof of such wires were submitted in opposition to this motion. Further, [i]n alleging mail or wire fraud as predicate acts in a civil RICO complaint, it is necessary to allege that the injured party relied on the fraudulent misrepresentations of the defendant, and that the reliance was the cause of the injury (B.V. Optische Industrie De Oude Delft, 909 F Supp at 170, citing Metromedia Co. v Fugazy, 983 F.2d 350, 368 [2d Cir 1992], cert. denied, 113 S Ct 2445 [1993]; see
9 Southwell v Middleton, 17 Misc 3d 1129A [Sup Ct, Kings County 2007]). The court takes judicial notice that the plaintiffs have vigorously defended the Autoland Action from its inception and have included in their Autoland Action answer the affirmative defense of frivolous litigation practice by Autoland and LOV, and have attempted to incorporate the RICO cause of action in the present litigation as a counterclaim in that action. Accordingly, it is apparent that the plaintiffs did not rely on the alleged misrepresentations in the pleadings and litigation documents served in the Autoland Action and, therefore, those documents could not have caused injury to the plaintiffs (see B.V. Optische, 909 F Supp at 170 [SDNY 1995]). Moreover, if an act of wire fraud is alleged, it must be predicated on interstate communications (Ritchie v Carvel Corp., 180 AD2d 786, 787 [2d Dept 1992], citing Creed Taylor, Inc. v CBS, Inc., 718 F Supp 1171, 1179 [SDNY 1989]). As all of the parties reside in New York, and all of the litigation has occurred in New York State, plaintiffs have failed to allege any interstate communication and the RICO cause of action based on wire fraud must be dismissed (see Ritchie, 180 AD2d at 787). Further, [w]itness tampering is actionable under 18 USC 1512 only if it takes place in an official proceeding, which is defined in 1515(a)(1) to include only federal proceedings. Accordingly, tampering with a witness in a state judicial proceeding, the offense that Plaintiff alleged, is not a RICO predicate act (Deck v Engineered Laminates, 349 F3d 1253, 1257 [10th Cir 2003]; see 18 USC 1515(a); Warden v Coolidge Unified Sch. Dist., 2008 US Dist LEXIS , *14 [D Ariz 2008]). As all of the criminal and civil litigation referred to by plaintiffs have taken place in state court, and the criminal investigation has been conducted by state entities, the allegations of tampering with a witness or victim pursuant to 18 USC 1512 did not occur within the context of an official proceeding pursuant to 18 USC 1515(a) and may therefore not constitute a RICO predicate act (see 18 USC 1515(a); Deck, 349 F3d at 1257; Warden, 2008 US Dist LEXIS at *14). Defendants have thus shown prima facie that the tenth cause of action has no merit as to them both legally and factually. Accordingly, the burden shifts to the plaintiffs to demonstrate the existence of a factual issue, requiring trial of the action, by providing admissible evidence (see CPLR 3212(b); Fotiatis, 70 AD3d at 632).
10 In opposition to the motion, plaintiffs submitted an attorney s affirmation with an affidavit from the plaintiffs private investigator. In addition, plaintiffs attempted to incorporate... by reference the Exhibits submitted with the Notice of Cross Motion on movants summary judgment motion in the Autoland Action. At oral argument, this court noted that referencing exhibits submitted in a separate action and in a separate motion was improper and the exhibits could not be considered as part of the record. It is noted that no principal or employee of the Auto Collection with knowledge of the facts submitted an affidavit contesting the defendants motion for summary judgment. The affidavit by the plaintiffs private investigator, Warren Flagg ( Flagg ), makes numerous oblique allegations as to the defendants purported involvement in the fraud with Pinkow and the purported identification of Gena, the alleged recipient of the cars on behalf of the defendants. However, Flagg s affidavit is littered with vague assertions and most of the statements are based on his opinion, to a reasonable degree of investigative certainty. Notably, the only source of his opinion that he cites, other than a review of deposition testimony and documentation provided by attorneys involved in this litigation, is from the mouth and lips of Chris Pinkow, the ringleader. However, Flagg does not state that he actually met Pinkow or obtained any recordings of Pinkow. Accordingly, as Flagg has not demonstrated that he has any personal knowledge of the facts of this case, his opinions are based on either speculation or hearsay and he has not otherwise substantiated any of his opinions. As Flagg s affidavit is conclusory and lacks any foundation, it is therefore insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212(b); Fotiatis, 70 AD3d at 632; Luu v Paskowski, 57 AD3d 856, 858 [2d Dept 2008]; Seyfried v Greenspan, 92 AD2d 563, 565 [2d Dept 1983] (holding, [b]are conclusory allegations are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment )). Although hearsay evidence may be considered in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, it is by itself insufficient to defeat such a motion (Raux, 59 AD3d at 985). In this motion, plaintiffs have not provided any other affidavit from a person with knowledge and, even if Flagg s hearsay were to be considered, it alone is insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment (see Raux, 59 AD3d at 985). Plaintiffs argument that the motion must be denied as plaintiffs were obstructed in their attempts to discover facts necessary to oppose the motion is also unpersuasive.
11 Plaintiffs cite Saint James Episcopal Church v FOCUS Foundation (47 AD3d 1058, [2d Dept 2008]) for the proposition that Pinkow s invocation of his Fifth Amendment rights at deposition prevented plaintiffs from establishing proof in admissible form to oppose the current motion. However, the present action is distinguished from Saint James. In Saint James, hearsay evidence of statements made to a police investigator, by an individual who later asserted his Fifth Amendment rights, was considered by the court, to defeat a summary judgment motion because the statements to the investigator did raise issues of fact (see Saint James, 47 AD3d at ). In the present action, plaintiffs private investigator has not established any personal knowledge of the facts of the case or explained when or how he came by his information and has submitted a completely unsubstantiated affidavit. Further, in Saint James, the court relied on some competent evidence [that] circumstantially supported the hearsay statements that created an issue of fact in opposition to the motion (Saint James, 47 AD3d at 1060). Plaintiffs have not provided any other competent evidence to raise an issue of fact. 7 Similarly, plaintiffs reliance on Halpern Development Venture v Board of Trustees of Village of North Tarrytown (222 AD2d 652 [2d Dept 1995]) is misplaced as the court in Halpern affirmed the denial of summary judgment to defendant based on the defendant s refusal to cooperate in discovery where many of the essential facts of the case were solely within the knowledge of the defendants.... In this action, there were 21 individual and corporate defendants identified as part of the second RICO enterprise and there has been extensive discovery for nearly two years. Unlike in Halpern, plaintiffs have not established that the essential facts of its claim are solely within the knowledge of Pinkow, nor have plaintiffs presented any substantiated evidence in opposition to this motion that raises an issue of fact as to whether any of the moving 7 It is noted that prior to invoking his Fifth Amendment rights at deposition, Pinkow responded to interrogatories in this action and in the Butenko action, in addition to submitting affidavits in the L&L action. In each of these sworn documents, Pinkow alleged that the owners of Auto Collection were engaged in the purported fraud. The court also takes judicial notice that in pleading guilty to the charge of scheme to defraud in the second degree on September 21, 2011, Pinkow swore that he aided and abetted The Auto Collection in a scheme to defraud others. Accordingly, unlike the hearsay in Saint James that raised an issue of fact in support of the party opposing summary judgment, Pinkow s consistent position that Auto Collection was involved in the purported fraud actually undermines plaintiffs argument that Auto Collection was unaware of the fraud and that it was a victim of the alleged racketeering activity.
12 defendants participated in the alleged second RICO enterprise (see Halpern, 222 AD2d at 653). The tenth cause of action is therefore dismissed. Defendants motion to dismiss the remaining causes of action is denied. Although defendants also moved to dismiss the second, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh causes of action for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with prospective business relations, conversion, unfair business practices, and fraud, respectively, defendants have not sufficiently argued or established that these causes of action are without merit 8 (see CPLR 3212(b)). Conclusion Defendants motion to dismiss is granted as to the tenth cause of action and denied as to the remaining causes of action. This constitutes the decision and order of the court. E N T E R : J.S.C. 8 After arguing that the RICO cause of action should be dismissed, defendants merely state that, [n]owehere in the cause of discovery have Plaintiffs even remotely raised any questions of fact concerning [the allegations in the remaining causes of action]. No further analysis of the remaining causes of action was provided.
SCAN SHORT FORM ORDER. PRESENT: HON. IRA B. WARSHAWSKY, Justice. TRIALIIAS PART 9 SUPREME COURT : STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU
SCAN SHORT FORM ORDER SUPREME COURT : STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU PRESENT: HON. IRA B. WARSHAWSKY, Justice. TRIALIIAS PART 9 THE AUTO COLLECTION INC. STEVEN LEVER and JOSHUA LEVER Plaintiffs INDEX
More informationAllaire v Mover 2014 NY Slip Op 32507(U) September 29, 2014 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: /09 Judge: Marcy S. Friedman Cases posted
Allaire v Mover 2014 NY Slip Op 32507(U) September 29, 2014 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: 650177/09 Judge: Marcy S. Friedman Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U),
More informationHalvatzis v Jamaica Hosp. Med. Ctr NY Slip Op 30511(U) March 28, 2016 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 7605/2014 Judge: Denis J.
Halvatzis v Jamaica Hosp. Med. Ctr. 2016 NY Slip Op 30511(U) March 28, 2016 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 7605/2014 Judge: Denis J. Butler Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013
More informationParra v Trinity Church Corp NY Slip Op 34122(U) June 13, 2011 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: /08 Judge: Doris Ling-Cohan Cases
Parra v Trinity Church Corp. 2011 NY Slip Op 34122(U) June 13, 2011 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: 114956/08 Judge: Doris Ling-Cohan Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op
More informationStein v Sapir Realty Management Corp NY Slip Op 31720(U) June 8, 2010 Sup Ct, Queens County Docket Number: 7699/2006 Judge: Orin R.
Stein v Sapir Realty Management Corp. 2010 NY Slip Op 31720(U) June 8, 2010 Sup Ct, Queens County Docket Number: 7699/2006 Judge: Orin R. Kitzes Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts
More informationINDIVIDUAL PRACTICES OF JUDGE DEBORAH A. BATTS
INDIVIDUAL PRACTICES OF JUDGE DEBORAH A. BATTS Nothing in my Individual Practices supersedes a specific time period for filing a motion specified by statute or Federal Rule including but not limited to
More informationCase 5:14-cr M Document 27 Filed 05/04/15 Page 1 of 32 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Case 5:14-cr-00318-M Document 27 Filed 05/04/15 Page 1 of 32 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) -vs- ) No. 5:14-cr-00318
More informationProgressive Specialty Ins. Co. v Lombardi 2013 NY Slip Op 32476(U) October 17, 2013 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 22338/2012 Judge:
Progressive Specialty Ins. Co. v Lombardi 2013 NY Slip Op 32476(U) October 17, 2013 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 22338/2012 Judge: Sidney F. Strauss Cases posted with a "30000" identifier,
More informationRespondents. Petitioner the People of the State of New York, by Andrew. M. Cuomo, Attorney General of the State of New York (petitioner)
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 17 -----------------------------------------X THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, by ANDREW M. CUOMO, Attorney General of the State of New
More informationDirect Capital Corp. v Popular Brokerage Corp NY Slip Op 31440(U) July 30, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2014
Direct Capital Corp. v Popular Brokerage Corp. 2015 NY Slip Op 31440(U) July 30, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 652710/2014 Judge: Arthur F. Engoron Cases posted with a "30000" identifier,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA Rismed Oncology Systems, Inc., ) Plaintiff. ) ) v. ) CV12 ) JURY DEMANDED Daniel Esgardo Rangel Baron, ) Isabel Rangel Baron, ) Rismed Dialysis
More informationHSBC Bank USA v Brisk 2013 NY Slip Op 33501(U) December 31, 2013 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: /09 Judge: Noach Dear Cases posted
HSBC Bank USA v Brisk 2013 NY Slip Op 33501(U) December 31, 2013 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 500098/09 Judge: Noach Dear Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U),
More informationCarlyle, LLC v Quik Park 1633 Garage LLC 2016 NY Slip Op 32476(U) December 15, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /15 Judge:
Carlyle, LLC v Quik Park 1633 Garage LLC 2016 NY Slip Op 32476(U) December 15, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 653347/15 Judge: Anil C. Singh Cases posted with a "30000" identifier,
More informationAnalisa Salon Ltd. v Elide Prop. LLC 2011 NY Slip Op 34125(U) July 22, 2011 Sup Ct, Westchester County Docket Number: 7582/05 Judge: Orazio R.
Analisa Salon Ltd. v Elide Prop. LLC 2011 NY Slip Op 34125(U) July 22, 2011 Sup Ct, Westchester County Docket Number: 7582/05 Judge: Orazio R. Bellantoni Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013
More informationCase 3:14-cv FAB Document 117 Filed 06/16/16 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
Case 3:14-cv-01616-FAB Document 117 Filed 06/16/16 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO PUERTO RICO MEDICAL EMERGENCY GROUP, INC. Plaintiff, v. Civil No. 14-1616
More informationDeutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Barquero 2015 NY Slip Op 32417(U) December 14, 2015 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: /2014 Judge:
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Barquero 2015 NY Slip Op 32417(U) December 14, 2015 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 702181/2014 Judge: David Elliot Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e.,
More informationGurevich v JP Morgan Chase 2013 NY Slip Op 33290(U) July 22, 2013 Supreme Court, Richmond County Docket Number: /13 Judge: John A.
Gurevich v JP Morgan Chase 2013 NY Slip Op 33290(U) July 22, 2013 Supreme Court, Richmond County Docket Number: 150159/13 Judge: John A. Fusco Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
More informationEmpire, LLC v Armin A. Meizlik Co., Inc NY Slip Op 30012(U) January 4, 2019 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2017 Judge:
Empire, LLC v Armin A. Meizlik Co., Inc. 2019 NY Slip Op 30012(U) January 4, 2019 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 160102/2017 Judge: Anthony Cannataro Cases posted with a "30000" identifier,
More informationSanchez v City of New York 2017 NY Slip Op 32185(U) September 13, 2017 Supreme Court, Bronx County Docket Number: /2014 Judge: Julia I.
Sanchez v City of New York 2017 NY Slip Op 32185(U) September 13, 2017 Supreme Court, Bronx County Docket Number: 303776/2014 Judge: Julia I. Rodriguez Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013
More informationCanon Fin. Servs., Inc. v Meyers Assoc., LP 2014 NY Slip Op 32519(U) September 26, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2013
Canon Fin. Servs., Inc. v Meyers Assoc., LP 2014 NY Slip Op 32519(U) September 26, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 650613/2013 Judge: Debra A. James Cases posted with a "30000" identifier,
More informationSimpson v Alter 2011 NY Slip Op 31765(U) June 21, 2011 Supreme Court, Nassau County Docket Number: 11095/09 Judge: Thomas P. Phelan Republished from
Simpson v Alter 2011 NY Slip Op 31765(U) June 21, 2011 Supreme Court, Nassau County Docket Number: 11095/09 Judge: Thomas P. Phelan Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service.
More informationUS Bank Natl. Assoc. v Perkins 2010 NY Slip Op 32423(U) August 5, 2010 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: /2009 Judge: Paul Wooten Republished
US Bank Natl. Assoc. v Perkins 2010 NY Slip Op 32423(U) August 5, 2010 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: 110256/2009 Judge: Paul Wooten Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service.
More informationCooper v Eli's Leasing, Inc NY Slip Op 33471(U) December 23, 2013 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2009 Judge: Arlene P.
Cooper v Eli's Leasing, Inc. 2013 NY Slip Op 33471(U) December 23, 2013 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 0117541/2009 Judge: Arlene P. Bluth Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 547 U. S. (2006) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationBooso v City of New York 2013 NY Slip Op 31878(U) August 8, 2013 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: /2010 Judge: Kathryn E.
Booso v City of New York 2013 NY Slip Op 31878(U) August 8, 2013 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: 402985/2010 Judge: Kathryn E. Freed Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts
More informationWaterfalls Italian Cuisine, Inc. v Tamarin 2013 NY Slip Op 33299(U) March 22, 2013 Sup Ct, Richmond County Docket Number: /2012 Judge: Philip
Waterfalls Italian Cuisine, Inc. v Tamarin 2013 NY Slip Op 33299(U) March 22, 2013 Sup Ct, Richmond County Docket Number: 103199/2012 Judge: Philip G. Minardo Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e.,
More informationPlaintiff, Defendants.
Short Form Order NEW YORK SUPREME COURT - QUEENS COUNTY PRESENT: ROGER N. ROSENGARTEN, JUSTICE. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------x LESLIE MINTO, PART IAS 23 Index
More informationCooke v Silijkovic 2009 NY Slip Op 32562(U) October 28, 2009 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 15108/2007 Judge: Timothy J.
Cooke v Silijkovic 2009 NY Slip Op 32562(U) October 28, 2009 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 15108/2007 Judge: Timothy J. Flaherty Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts
More informationNewbank v Parcare Servs. Inc NY Slip Op 30200(U) January 30, 2013 Sup Ct, Queens County Docket Number: 30639/2010 Judge: Robert J.
Newbank v Parcare Servs. Inc. 2013 NY Slip Op 30200(U) January 30, 2013 Sup Ct, Queens County Docket Number: 30639/2010 Judge: Robert J. McDonald Republished from New York State Unified Court System's
More informationChen v R & K 51 Realty Inc NY Slip Op 31526(U) August 13, 2015 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: /2014 Judge: Carolyn E.
Chen v R & K 51 Realty Inc. 2015 NY Slip Op 31526(U) August 13, 2015 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 509507/2014 Judge: Carolyn E. Demarest Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013
More informationM E M O R A N D U M. Plaintiff, DATED: April 17, In this action based upon a breach of a restrictive
M E M O R A N D U M SUPREME COURT: QUEENS COUNTY IA PART: 2 ------------------------------------x THE NEW YORK CITY ECONOMIC INDEX NO. 5856/00 DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, BY: WEISS, J. -against- Plaintiff,
More information310 W. 115 St. LLC v Greenpoint Mtge. Funding, Inc NY Slip Op 31644(U) August 27, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number:
310 W. 115 St. LLC v Greenpoint Mtge. Funding, Inc. 2015 NY Slip Op 31644(U) August 27, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 156309/2014 Judge: Donna M. Mills Cases posted with a "30000"
More informationVallejo-Bayas v Time Warner Cable, Inc NY Slip Op 30751(U) April 13, 2015 Sup Ct, Queens County Docket Number: 16871/12 Judge: Darrell L.
Vallejo-Bayas v Time Warner Cable, Inc. 2015 NY Slip Op 30751(U) April 13, 2015 Sup Ct, Queens County Docket Number: 16871/12 Judge: Darrell L. Gavrin Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013
More informationBretton Woods Condominium I v Bretton Woods Homeowners Assn., Inc NY Slip Op 33034(U) October 25, 2010 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket
Bretton Woods Condominium I v Bretton Woods Homeowners Assn., Inc. 2010 NY Slip Op 33034(U) October 25, 2010 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: 09-36820 Judge: Jeffrey Arlen Spinner Republished
More informationSiony v Siunykalimi 2014 NY Slip Op 30740(U) March 25, 2014 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: /2012 Judge: Carolyn E.
Siony v Siunykalimi 2014 NY Slip Op 30740(U) March 25, 2014 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 014562/2012 Judge: Carolyn E. Demarest Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
More informationRobles v City of New York 2011 NY Slip Op 34168(U) September 14, 2011 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 27364/07 Judge: Sylvia G.
Robles v City of New York 2011 NY Slip Op 34168(U) September 14, 2011 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 27364/07 Judge: Sylvia G. Ash Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
More informationPark Natl. Bank v Lops 2011 NY Slip Op 32505(U) September 16, 2011 Sup Ct, Nassau County Docket Number: Judge: Steven M. Jaeger Republished
Park Natl. Bank v Lops 2011 NY Slip Op 32505(U) September 16, 2011 Sup Ct, Nassau County Docket Number: 21522-09 Judge: Steven M. Jaeger Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts
More informationBriare Tile, Inc. v Town & Country Flooring, Inc NY Slip Op 31520(U) May 24, 2011 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2010
Briare Tile, Inc. v Town & Country Flooring, Inc. 2011 NY Slip Op 31520(U) May 24, 2011 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 600495/2010 Judge: Paul Wooten Republished from New York State Unified
More informationPlaintiff(s), & TRUST CO., et al. Defendant(s).
SHORT FORM ORDER SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK Present: HON. RALPH P. FRANCO, Justice TRIAL/IA& PART 13 ALAN GUTHARTZ Plaintiff(s), NASSAU COUNTY -against- INDEX No.: 30943199 MOTION SEQ. #l&2 THE
More informationHertz Vehs, LLC v Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C NY Slip Op 30242(U) February 18, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /12
Hertz Vehs, LLC v Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. 2015 NY Slip Op 30242(U) February 18, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 158504/12 Judge: Eileen A. Rakower Cases posted with a "30000"
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/21/ :07 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/21/2016
FILED NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/21/2016 0507 PM INDEX NO. 651546/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF 09/21/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION
More informationRosenthal v Quadriga Art, Inc NY Slip Op 33413(U) December 21, 2011 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2006 Judge: Barbara R.
Rosenthal v Quadriga Art, Inc. 2011 NY Slip Op 33413(U) December 21, 2011 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 116974/2006 Judge: Barbara R. Kapnick Republished from New York State Unified Court
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/11/ :52 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/11/2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------X X Index No. 451751/2016 TYRONE McGANN and MARY McGANN, Plaintiff,
More informationDweck v MEC Enters. LLC 2016 NY Slip Op 31659(U) August 31, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2014 Judge: Barry Ostrager
Dweck v MEC Enters. LLC 2016 NY Slip Op 31659(U) August 31, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 152011/2014 Judge: Barry Ostrager Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
More informationKhanna v Hartford 2015 NY Slip Op 32015(U) October 28, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2014 Judge: Eileen A.
Khanna v Hartford 2015 NY Slip Op 32015(U) October 28, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 653317/2014 Judge: Eileen A. Rakower Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
More informationLapsley-Cockett v Metropolitan Tr. Auth NY Slip Op 32550(U) September 29, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /13 Judge:
Lapsley-Cockett v Metropolitan Tr. Auth. 2014 NY Slip Op 32550(U) September 29, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 451341/13 Judge: Michael D. Stallman Cases posted with a "30000" identifier,
More informationSupreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department D51351 M/afa
Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department D51351 M/afa AD3d Argued - October 4, 2016 MARK C. DILLON, J.P. SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX JOSEPH J. MALTESE BETSY BARROS,
More informationCrane v 315 Greenwich St., LLC 2014 NY Slip Op 33660(U) September 3, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /10 Judge: George J.
Crane v 315 Greenwich St., LLC 2014 NY Slip Op 33660(U) September 3, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 113102/10 Judge: George J. Silver Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013
More informationMA DAYAN, EMPIRE HOME SALES, INC., ASAF DROR, ESQ., JOHN DOE MORTGAGE BROKER, SUPERIOR ABSTRACT CORP.,
------------------------------------------------------------ SHORT FORM ORDER SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, / )(fj Present: HON. LAWRENCE J. BRENNAN Acting Justice Supreme Court -----------------------------------------------------------------
More informationHammond v Smith NY Slip Op 50670(U) Decided on April 22, Supreme Court, Monroe County. Rosenbaum, J.
[*1] Hammond v Smith 2016 NY Slip Op 50670(U) Decided on April 22, 2016 Supreme Court, Monroe County Rosenbaum, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law 431. This opinion
More informationManda Intl. Corp. v Yager 2015 NY Slip Op 31920(U) October 14, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /13 Judge: Saliann Scarpulla
Manda Intl. Corp. v Yager 2015 NY Slip Op 31920(U) October 14, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 653012/13 Judge: Saliann Scarpulla Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY
More informationBarnett v City of New York 2015 NY Slip Op 30190(U) January 15, 2015 Supreme Court, Bronx County Docket Number: /2011 Judge: Sharon A.M.
Barnett v City of New York 2015 NY Slip Op 30190(U) January 15, 2015 Supreme Court, Bronx County Docket Number: 311379/2011 Judge: Sharon A.M. Aarons Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013
More informationDeutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Unknown Heirs of the Estate of Souto 2016 NY Slip Op 31274(U) July 5, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Unknown Heirs of the Estate of Souto 2016 NY Slip Op 31274(U) July 5, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 850119/15 Judge: Arlene P. Bluth Cases posted with
More informationCase 2:08-cv JLL-CCC Document 46 Filed 10/23/2009 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Case 2:08-cv-04143-JLL-CCC Document 46 Filed 10/23/2009 Page 1 of 13 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY THOMASON AUTO GROUP, LLC, v. Plaintiff, Civil Action No.: 08-4143
More informationDoran v City of New York 2013 NY Slip Op 32858(U) March 21, 2013 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: /2008 Judge: Manuel J.
Doran v City of New York 2013 NY Slip Op 32858(U) March 21, 2013 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: 110200/2008 Judge: Manuel J. Mendez Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op
More informationDis v Bellport Area Community Action Comm NY Slip Op 31817(U) July 15, 2010 Sup Ct, Suffolk County Docket Number: Judge: Emily Pines
Dis v Bellport Area Community Action Comm. 2010 NY Slip Op 31817(U) July 15, 2010 Sup Ct, Suffolk County Docket Number: 11837-2010 Judge: Emily Pines Republished from New York State Unified Court System's
More informationTaboola, Inc. v DML News & Entertainment, Inc NY Slip Op 33448(U) December 27, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2017
Taboola, Inc. v DML News & Entertainment, Inc. 2018 NY Slip Op 33448(U) December 27, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 656393/2017 Judge: Margaret A. Chan Cases posted with a "30000" identifier,
More informationSaldana v City of New York 2018 NY Slip Op 32973(U) October 1, 2018 Supreme Court, Bronx County Docket Number: 21703/2015 Judge: Llinet M.
Saldana v City of New York 2018 NY Slip Op 32973(U) October 1, 2018 Supreme Court, Bronx County Docket Number: 21703/2015 Judge: Llinet M. Rosado Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
More informationState of New York v Credit Suisse Sec NY Slip Op 32031(U) July 17, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2013 Judge: Kelly
State of New York v Credit Suisse Sec. 2015 NY Slip Op 32031(U) July 17, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 100185/2013 Judge: Kelly A. O'Neill Levy Cases posted with a "30000" identifier,
More informationDevlin v Mendes & Mount, LLP 2011 NY Slip Op 33823(U) July 1, 2011 Sup Ct, Queens County Docket Number: 31433/10 Judge: Denis J. Butler Cases posted
Devlin v Mendes & Mount, LLP 2011 NY Slip Op 33823(U) July 1, 2011 Sup Ct, Queens County Docket Number: 31433/10 Judge: Denis J. Butler Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U),
More informationVanHanehan v St. Thomas 2018 NY Slip Op 32971(U) November 30, 2018 Supreme Court, Wayne County Docket Number: Judge: John B.
VanHanehan v St. Thomas 2018 NY Slip Op 32971(U) November 30, 2018 Supreme Court, Wayne County Docket Number: 79398 Judge: John B. Nesbitt Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op
More informationLove v BMW of N. Am., LLC 2017 NY Slip Op 30528(U) February 21, 2017 Supreme Court, Richmond County Docket Number: /16 Judge: Kim Dollard Cases
Love v BMW of N. Am., LLC 2017 NY Slip Op 30528(U) February 21, 2017 Supreme Court, Richmond County Docket Number: 150653/16 Judge: Kim Dollard Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
More informationMerchant Cash & Capital, LLC v M.B. Auto Body, Inc NY Slip Op 31685(U) August 31, 2016 Supreme Court, Nassau County Docket Number: /2015
Merchant Cash & Capital, LLC v M.B. Auto Body, Inc. 2016 NY Slip Op 31685(U) August 31, 2016 Supreme Court, Nassau County Docket Number: 605025/2015 Judge: Karen V. Murphy Cases posted with a "30000" identifier,
More informationPlaintiffs motion for summary judgment as to its claim of contractual indemnification. is granted in the amount of
SHORT FORM ORDER SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK Present: HON. DANIEL PALMIERI Acting Justice Supreme Court ~~~~- ----~---~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ TRIAL PART: 35 ELRAC, INC. d/b/a Enterprise-Rent-A-Car
More informationKnights of Columbus v Bank of N.Y. Mellon 2015 NY Slip Op 31362(U) July 10, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2011 Judge:
Knights of Columbus v Bank of N.Y. Mellon 2015 NY Slip Op 31362(U) July 10, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 651442/2011 Judge: Saliann Scarpulla Cases posted with a "30000" identifier,
More informationCOUNTY OF NASSAU. PRESENT: HON. IRA B. WARSHAWSKY, Justice. TRIAL/IAS PART 20. Plaintiff, Defendants.
SHORT FORM ORDER SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU / t PRESENT: HON. IRA B. WARSHAWSKY, Justice. TRIAL/IAS PART 20 ROBERT F. VAN DER WAAG, - against - Plaintiff, INDEX NO.: 013077/2002
More informationChicago False Claims Act
Chicago False Claims Act Chapter 1-21 False Statements 1-21-010 False Statements. Any person who knowingly makes a false statement of material fact to the city in violation of any statute, ordinance or
More informationNieborak v W54-7, LLC 2018 NY Slip Op 32132(U) July 31, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /14 Judge: Nancy M.
Nieborak v W54-7, LLC 2018 NY Slip Op 32132(U) July 31, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 157084/14 Judge: Nancy M. Bannon Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op
More informationFILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/13/ :14 PM INDEX NO /2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/13/2016
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/13/2016 10:14 PM INDEX NO. 507535/2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/13/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS ----------------------------------------------------------------x
More informationNEW YORK SUPREME COURT - QUEENS COUNTY. AVA A. FRANK, x Index Number Plaintiff, Motion - against - Date July 12, 2006
Short Form Order NEW YORK SUPREME COURT - QUEENS COUNTY Present: HONORABLE ALLAN B. WEISS IA Part 2 Justice AVA A. FRANK, x Index Number 8430 2006 Plaintiff, Motion - against - Date July 12, 2006 Motion
More informationFILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 07/28/ :16 AM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/28/2017
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 07/28/2017 10:16 AM INDEX NO. 032674/2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ROCKLAND ------------------------------------------------------------------X SRP
More informationKin Lung Cheung v Nicosia 2014 NY Slip Op 32176(U) July 30, 2014 Sup Ct, Kings County Docket Number: /13 Judge: Mark I. Partnow Cases posted
Kin Lung Cheung v Nicosia 2014 NY Slip Op 32176(U) July 30, 2014 Sup Ct, Kings County Docket Number: 501965/13 Judge: Mark I. Partnow Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U),
More informationAmerican Tr. Ins. Co. v Batista 2016 NY Slip Op 30003(U) January 4, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2015 Judge: Eileen A.
American Tr. Ins. Co. v Batista 2016 NY Slip Op 30003(U) January 4, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 651292/2015 Judge: Eileen A. Rakower Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e.,
More informationCaso v Delrosario 2016 NY Slip Op 32958(U) June 20, 2016 Supreme Court, Westchester County Docket Number: 60219/2014 Judge: Lawrence H.
Caso v Delrosario 2016 NY Slip Op 32958(U) June 20, 2016 Supreme Court, Westchester County Docket Number: 60219/2014 Judge: Lawrence H. Ecker Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
More informationSwift v Broadway Neon Sign Corp NY Slip Op 31618(U) July 17, 2013 Sup Ct, Suffolk County Docket Number: Judge: Emily Pines
Swift v Broadway Neon Sign Corp. 2013 NY Slip Op 31618(U) July 17, 2013 Sup Ct, Suffolk County Docket Number: 0015021-2010 Judge: Emily Pines Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts
More information50.1 Mail Fraud 18 U.S.C something by private or commercial interstate carrier] in carrying out a
50.1 Mail Fraud 18 U.S.C. 1341 It s a Federal crime to [use the United States mail] [transmit something by private or commercial interstate carrier] in carrying out a scheme to defraud someone. The Defendant
More informationMARY MURPHY-CLAGETT, AS : DECOTIIS IN OPPOSITION TO
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK IN RE: NEW YORK CITY : INDEX NO.: 190311/2015 ASBESTOS LITIGATION : : This Document Relates To: : : AFFIRMATION OF LEIGH A MARY MURPHY-CLAGETT,
More informationIndependent Temperature Control Servs., Inc. v Alps Mech. Inc NY Slip Op 31563(U) June 1, 2011 Sup Ct, Queens County Docket Number: 1338/11
Independent Temperature Control Servs., Inc. v Alps Mech. Inc. 2011 NY Slip Op 31563(U) June 1, 2011 Sup Ct, Queens County Docket Number: 1338/11 Judge: Orin R. Kitzes Republished from New York State Unified
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE I. INTRODUCTION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 0 DOUGLAS LUTHER MYSER, CASE NO. C-00JLR v. Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 0 STEVEN TANGEN, et al.,
More informationPatapova v Duncan Interiors, Inc NY Slip Op 33013(U) November 27, 2013 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: /2010 Judge: Joan A.
Patapova v Duncan Interiors, Inc. 2013 NY Slip Op 33013(U) November 27, 2013 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: 652188/2010 Judge: Joan A. Madden Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013
More informationInfinity Ins. Co. v Nazaire 2016 NY Slip Op 31454(U) July 22, 2016 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: /2013 Judge: Wavny Toussaint
Infinity Ins. Co. v Nazaire 2016 NY Slip Op 31454(U) July 22, 2016 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 506767/2013 Judge: Wavny Toussaint Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
More informationBell v New York City Hous. Auth NY Slip Op 31933(U) October 15, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /13 Judge: Cynthia S.
Bell v New York City Hous. Auth. 2015 NY Slip Op 31933(U) October 15, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 155513/13 Judge: Cynthia S. Kern Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013
More informationSpallone v Spallone 2014 NY Slip Op 32412(U) September 11, 2014 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: /2013 Judge: Eileen A. Rakower Cases posted
Spallone v Spallone 2014 NY Slip Op 32412(U) September 11, 2014 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: 160061/2013 Judge: Eileen A. Rakower Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U),
More informationLaSalle Bank N.A. v Browd 2015 NY Slip Op 30833(U) May 8, 2015 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 18563/08 Judge: Howard G.
LaSalle Bank N.A. v Browd 2015 NY Slip Op 30833(U) May 8, 2015 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 18563/08 Judge: Howard G. Lane Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U),
More informationJMS AN's, LLC v Fast Food Enters., LLC 2011 NY Slip Op 33900(U) September 28, 2011 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /09 Judge:
JMS AN's, LLC v Fast Food Enters., LLC 2011 NY Slip Op 33900(U) September 28, 2011 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 603608/09 Judge: Richard B. Lowe III Cases posted with a "30000" identifier,
More informationFrydman v Francese 2017 NY Slip Op 31069(U) May 15, 2017 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2015 Judge: Cynthia S.
Frydman v Francese 2017 NY Slip Op 31069(U) May 15, 2017 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 155477/2015 Judge: Cynthia S. Kern Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U),
More informationRICHARD J. MONTELIONE, J.:
CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS: PART 41 Z.M.S. & Y. Acupuncture, P.C., a/a/o Nicola Farauharson, -against- Geico General Insurance Co., Plaintiff, Defendant. RICHARD J. MONTELIONE,
More informationJanicki v Beaux Arts II LLC 2016 NY Slip Op 30614(U) April 11, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2013 Judge: Arthur F.
Janicki v Beaux Arts II LLC 2016 NY Slip Op 30614(U) April 11, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 156299/2013 Judge: Arthur F. Engoron Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013
More informationNORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Securities And Exchange Commission v. JSW Financial Inc. et al Doc. 5 1 2 3 4 5 7 JINA L. CHOI (N.Y. Bar No. 997) ROBERT L. TASHJIAN (Cal. Bar No. 1007) tashjianr a~see.~ov. STEVEN D. BUCHHOLZ (Cal. Bar
More informationToma v Karavias 2018 NY Slip Op 33313(U) December 19, 2018 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: /18 Judge: Debra Silber Cases posted with
Toma v Karavias 2018 NY Slip Op 33313(U) December 19, 2018 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 511393/18 Judge: Debra Silber Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U),
More informationBank of N.Y. Mellon v Arthur 2013 NY Slip Op 32625(U) October 23, 2013 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2010 Judge: Cynthia S.
Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Arthur 2013 NY Slip Op 32625(U) October 23, 2013 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 104611/2010 Judge: Cynthia S. Kern Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013
More informationBeasley v Asdotel Enters., Inc NY Slip Op 33192(U) November 5, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2008 Judge: Mary Ann
Beasley v Asdotel Enters., Inc. 2014 NY Slip Op 33192(U) November 5, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 310566/2008 Judge: Mary Ann Brigantti Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e.,
More informationTHOMAS CATANESE Defendants x
SUPREME COURT-STATE OF NEW YORK SHORT.FORM ORDER Present: HON. TIMOTHY S. DRISCOLL Justice Supreme Court -------------- ----------------------------------------------------- x LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
More informationRodriguez v City of New York 2014 NY Slip Op 33650(U) October 16, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2011 Judge: Kathryn E.
Rodriguez v City of New York 2014 NY Slip Op 33650(U) October 16, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 109444/2011 Judge: Kathryn E. Freed Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013
More informationCase 2:08-cv JCZ-DEK Document 288 Filed 12/08/2008 Page 1 of 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ORDER AND REASONS
Case 2:08-cv-01220-JCZ-DEK Document 288 Filed 12/08/2008 Page 1 of 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA KURIAN DAVID, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 08-1220 SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL,
More informationNagi v Mario Broadway Deli Grocery Corp NY Slip Op 31352(U) June 29, 2016 Supreme Court, Bronx County Docket Number: /13 Judge: Elizabeth
Nagi v Mario Broadway Deli Grocery Corp. 2016 NY Slip Op 31352(U) June 29, 2016 Supreme Court, Bronx County Docket Number: 300265/13 Judge: Elizabeth A. Taylor Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e.,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS RONALD SWEATT, LYDIA SWEATT, and MOTOR CITY III, L.L.C., UNPUBLISHED May 30, 2006 Plaintiffs-Appellants, v No. 259272 Oakland Circuit Court EDWARD GARDOCKI, LC No. 1999-016379-CK
More informationDefendant Mitchell Stern (Stern) moves, pursuant to CPLR 3212, for summary
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/10/2015 11:54 PM INDEX NO. 653564/2014 2/10/2015 Peckar & Abramson, P.C. v Lyford Holdings, Ltd. (2014 NY Slip Op 50294(U)) NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/10/2015
More informationResponse Personell, Inc. v Aschenbrenner 2014 NY Slip Op 31948(U) July 17, 2014 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: /2008 Judge: Eileen
Response Personell, Inc. v Aschenbrenner 2014 NY Slip Op 31948(U) July 17, 2014 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: 106509/2008 Judge: Eileen Bransten Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013
More informationVentures Trust 2013-I-H-R v Tsimmer 2017 NY Slip Op 30570(U) March 23, 2017 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /15 Judge: Barbara
Ventures Trust 2013-I-H-R v Tsimmer 2017 NY Slip Op 30570(U) March 23, 2017 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 850230/15 Judge: Barbara Jaffe Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013
More information