§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of Sylvan Lawrence, Deceased.---------------Richard S. Lawrence, et al., Respondents,v.Graubard Miller, et al., Appellants,----------------Richard S. Lawrence, et al., Intervenors-Respondents.

Brief

19 Cited authorities

  1. Lawrence v. Miller

    2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 9434 (N.Y. 2008)   Cited 402 times
    Affirming denial of motion to dismiss in a legal malpractice case because the parties had not presented evidence to show whether the retainer agreement was unconscionable

  2. Matter of Cooperman

    83 N.Y.2d 465 (N.Y. 1994)   Cited 206 times
    Holding non-refundable retainers prohibited by Code of Professional Responsibility, applying provisions materially the same as Arizona's

  3. In re Eadie v. Town Bd. of N. Greenbush

    2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 5236 (N.Y. 2006)   Cited 90 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Upholding a 100-foot buffer zone used to avoid triggering a supermajority vote

  4. Doviak v. Finkelstein & Partners, LLP

    90 A.D.3d 696 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 61 times

    2011-12-13 Robert DOVIAK, et al., respondents-appellants, v. FINKELSTEIN & PARTNERS, LLP, et al., appellants-respondents. Furman Kornfeld & Brennan, LLP, New York, N.Y. (A. Michael Furman of counsel), for appellants-respondents. Kaplan Landau, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Eugene Neal Kaplan of counsel), and Levy Phillips & Konigsberg, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Valerie A. Phillips and Steven J. Phillips of counsel), for respondents-appellants (one brief filed). PETER B. SKELOS Furman Kornfeld & Brennan, LLP, New

  5. Diamond v. Oreamuno

    24 N.Y.2d 494 (N.Y. 1969)   Cited 186 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, under principles similar to those behind 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, officers and directors, who used material inside information, are accountable in shareholder's derivative action to their corporations for their gains from transactions in company's stock, even where the actions did not injure or damage the company

  6. Feiger v. Iral Jewelry, Ltd.

    41 N.Y.2d 928 (N.Y. 1977)   Cited 148 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding employee must lessen work or misuse employer secrets to constitute faithless servant

  7. First National Bank of Cincinnati v. Pepper

    454 F.2d 626 (2d Cir. 1972)   Cited 112 times
    Stating that an appellate court cannot consider any new issue not raised in the district court, except to cure jurisdictional defects under 28 U.S.C. § 1653

  8. Quinn v. Walsh

    18 A.D.3d 638 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 35 times

    2004-05523. May 16, 2005. In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, Ronald M. Sickmen, the former attorney for the plaintiffs, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated May 7, 2004, which granted the motion of Mark A. Musachio, attorney of record for the plaintiffs, for an award of the entire attorney's fee following settlement of the underlying personal injury action. Before: Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Spolzino and Lifson, JJ., concur. Ordered that

  9. Lawrence v. Miller

    48 A.D.3d 1 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)   Cited 30 times

    No. 603257/05 175/82 439 440N 441N. November 27, 2007. APPEALS from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Helen E. Freedman, J.), entered December 16, 2005, and orders of the Surrogate's Court, New York County (Renee R. Roth, S.), entered July 12, 2006 and October 4, 2006. The first order granted defendants' motion to remove the action to Surrogate's Court. The second order, insofar as appealed from, confirmed a Referee's report recommending denial of a motion to dismiss the petition. The

  10. Simpson Elec v. Leucadia, Inc.

    72 N.Y.2d 450 (N.Y. 1988)   Cited 46 times
    Holding that New York state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over civil RICO claims

  11. Section 1013 - Intervention by permission

    N.Y. CPLR 1013   Cited 599 times

    Upon timely motion, any person may be permitted to intervene in any action when a statute of the state confers a right to intervene in the discretion of the court, or when the person's claim or defense and the main action have a common question of law or fact. In exercising its discretion, the court shall consider whether the intervention will unduly delay the determination of the action or prejudice the substantial rights of any party. N.Y. CPLR 1013