§Why CasetextPricing

Capital One Taxi Medallion Finance, Respondent,v.Patton R. Corrigan et al., Appellants.

Brief

7 Cited authorities

  1. Rotuba Extruders v. Ceppos

    46 N.Y.2d 223 (N.Y. 1978)   Cited 3,656 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that summary judgment should be denied where there is any doubt as to the existence of triable issues of fact

  2. Sharma v. Skaarup Ship Management Corp.

    916 F.2d 820 (2d Cir. 1990)   Cited 192 times
    Holding that to state a claim for tortious interference with contractual relations, a plaintiff must also show that “but for” the actions of the defendant, the contract would have been completed

  3. J.D. Structures, Inc. v. Waldbaum

    282 A.D.2d 434 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)   Cited 54 times

    Argued March 13, 2001. April 2, 2001. In an action to recover on an instrument for the payment of money only brought by motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mahon, J.), dated May 18, 2000, as denied the motion and granted that branch of the defendants' cross motion pursuant to CPLR 7503 which was to compel arbitration of the parties' claims, and (2)

  4. SCP (Bermuda) Inc. v. Bermudatel Ltd.

    224 A.D.2d 214 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)   Cited 59 times   1 Legal Analyses

    February 6, 1996 Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.). Defendants herein owned options to purchase land in Bermuda on which they planned to build a hotel and, in accordance therewith, approached the Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company to develop the project. Plaintiff was enlisted as an equity partner to acquire $22,000,000 in order to purchase the land quickly, as the options were of limited duration. On or about November 29, 1990, the parties entered into a "Memorandum of Understanding"

  5. In re Lyondell Chemical Co.

    402 B.R. 571 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009)   Cited 25 times
    Finding likelihood of success on the merits in the form of an "on track" reorganization

  6. Capital One Taxi Medallion Fin. v. Corrigan

    147 A.D.3d 677 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)   Cited 3 times

    02-28-2017 CAPITAL ONE TAXI MEDALLION FINANCE, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Patton R. CORRIGAN, et al., Defendants–Respondents. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, New York (Alexander C. Drylewski of counsel), for appellant. Molo Lamken LLP, New York (Robert K. Kry of counsel), for respondents. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, New York (Alexander C. Drylewski of counsel), for appellant. Molo Lamken LLP, New York (Robert K. Kry of counsel), for respondents. TOM, J.P., RENWICK, SAXE, FEINMAN

  7. Great Plains Capital Corp. v. Levi

    36 Misc. 3d 1236 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 2012)   Cited 1 times

    No. 38023/2011. 2012-08-22 GREAT PLAINS CAPITAL CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. Sigal S. LEVI, Defendant. Stewart Wolf, Esq., Foster & Wolkind, P.C., New York, attorneys for plaintiff. Michael L. Hurwitz, Esq., The Hurwitz Law Firm, New York, attorneys for defendant. HARRIET L. THOMPSON Stewart Wolf, Esq., Foster & Wolkind, P.C., New York, attorneys for plaintiff. Michael L. Hurwitz, Esq., The Hurwitz Law Firm, New York, attorneys for defendant. HARRIET L. THOMPSON, J. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY This