- Law Firm Violated Fair Debt Act by Starting Lawsuit During 30-Day Validation Period
- No Implied Contract Requiring Payment of a Placement Fee
- Payment to Court of More than Amount Necessary to Redeem Property Was Insufficient Both to Stay Foreclosure Sale and to Redeem Property
- Defendant In Foreclosure Action Entitled To Setoff Even Though It Waived That Right In Mortgage Agreement
- Procedural Error in Disciplinary Hearing Process Entitles Employee to Four Years of Back Pay and Benefits
- MORTGAGE COMMITMENT DOES NOT BIND PURCHASER BECAUSE OF CHANGE OF FACTS IN CREDIT REPORT
- A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT TO PREVENT BUSINESS COMPETITION SHALL BE ENFORCED
- Condo Unit Owner Cannot Sue Condo Board Directly for Cell Tower Lease
- Successful Bidder at Foreclosure Sale Entitled to Set Aside Sale and Get Deposit Back Based Upon Referee’s Unauthorized Actions
Subscribe 
Contact
914.682.0707
Search this Blog
Our Other Blogs
Recent Entries
- January 14, 2010 11:07 AM
Law Firm Violated Fair Debt Act by Starting Lawsuit During 30-Day Validation Period The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit... - January 4, 2010 10:36 AM
No Implied Contract Requiring Payment of a Placement Fee The Appellate Division Second Department has ruled that there was not sufficient “assent” to require a law firm to pay a recruiting firm’s fee when the resume was sent to a partner in the firm’s New York office, but the candidate was independently interviewed and hired by the firm’s Washington D.C. office. - December 21, 2009 5:03 PM
Payment to Court of More than Amount Necessary to Redeem Property Was Insufficient Both to Stay Foreclosure Sale and to Redeem Property Even though the defendant remitted to the Court (but not the plaintiff) more than the amount necessary to redeem the property before the foreclosure sale, the Court of Appeals ruled that the property owner did not properly stay the sale nor did it exercise its right to redeem. - December 18, 2009 4:59 PM
Defendant In Foreclosure Action Entitled To Setoff Even Though It Waived That Right In Mortgage Agreement The Appellate Division, Second Department ruled that even though the defendant waived their setoff rights in the mortgage, the Court ruled that defendant was entitled to a setoff as the possession agreement “executed on the same day, by the same parties, and for the same purpose” provided for a setoff. - December 16, 2009 4:37 PM
Procedural Error in Disciplinary Hearing Process Entitles Employee to Four Years of Back Pay and Benefits In what one of the concurring Justices termed “an excessive burden to impose on the County for a procedural error,” the Court of Appeals ruled that it was compelled, based upon its prior determinations, to rule that the petitioner was entitled to recover four years worth of back pay and that “the problem is one that only the Legislature can fix.”
Legal Blogs
- tins (Rick Klau)
- Sexual Harassment Lawyer Blawg (Joshua Friedman)
- New York Injury Talk Blog (Wingate, Russotti & Shapiro)
- New York Wrongful Death Lawyer Blog (Leland Williams)
- Translation For Lawyers (All Language Alliance)
- Colorado Business Litigation Lawyer Blog (Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte)
- New York Employment Attorneys Blog (The Harman Firm)
- Long Term Disability Law Blog (Scott Riemer)
- Dennis Kennedy Blog (Dennis Kennedy)
- New York Bankruptcy Lawyer Blog (Starr & Starr)
- New York Real Estate Lawyer Blog (Klose & Associates)
- Expert Witness Blog (JurisPro Expert Witness Directory)
- Justia Law Review (Ken Chan & Tim Stanley)