§Why CasetextPricing

Dorothy M. Faison,, Appellant,v.Tonya Lewis,, et al., Defendants, Bank of America, N.A., Respondent.

Brief

19 Cited authorities

  1. Centro Empresarial Cempresa S.A. v. América Móvil, S.A.B. de C.V.

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 4720 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 446 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that shareholders that had released unknown fraud claims arising out of the shareholders' ownership interest in a company could not base a rescission claim on allegations that defendants had induced the release by concealing the true value of that interest

  2. Symbol Tech. v. Deloitte

    69 A.D.3d 191 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)   Cited 124 times

    No. 2008-06642. October 27, 2009. APPEAL from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Elizabeth Hazlitt Emerson, J.), dated June 16, 2008. The order, upon treating defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) as a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, granted that branch of the motion which was, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) to dismiss the amended complaint as time-barred and that branch of the motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss

  3. Matter of Rothko

    43 N.Y.2d 305 (N.Y. 1977)   Cited 237 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where it is impossible to appraise damages with certainty, the Surrogate "had the right to resort to reasonable conjectures and probable estimates and to make the best approximation possible through the exercise of good judgment and common sense in arriving at that amount"

  4. Kraker v. Roll

    100 A.D.2d 424 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)   Cited 144 times

    April 2, 1984 Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, Paul Baisley, J. Thomas T. Kilhenny and Mellor A. Gill for Lydia Roll Kraker, appellant. Richard S. Zummo (relying on the brief of appellant Lydia Roll Kraker), for Anna Roll, appellant. Cruser, Hills, Hills Besunder ( Edgar Hills of counsel), for Squirrel Hill Homes, Inc., respondent. GIBBONS, J. Frederick Roll, Sr., was born in 1879. In 1929, he purchased an unimproved parcel of real property in Brentwood, Suffolk County. Subsequently

  5. Riverside Syndicate v. Munroe

    2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 1028 (N.Y. 2008)   Cited 64 times
    Noting that the six-year statute of limitations for contract actions "does not make an agreement that was void at its inception valid by the mere passage of time"

  6. Adrean Coombs v. Jervier

    74 A.D.3d 724 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)   Cited 54 times

    No. 2009-08895. June 1, 2010. In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud and to impose a constructive trust, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Martin, J.), dated July 27, 2009, which granted the motion of the defendants Beverly Jervier and Timothy Jervier to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (3) and (5). Ugo Uzoh, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Ugochukwu Uzoh of counsel), for appellant. Farrell Fritz, P.C., Uniondale

  7. Piedra v. Vanover

    174 A.D.2d 191 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)   Cited 91 times
    Finding claim for fraudulent deed conveyance brought more than six years after transfer of deed barred by applicable statute of limitations

  8. Karan v. Hoskins

    22 A.D.3d 638 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 57 times

    2004-05659. October 17, 2005. In an action, inter alia, pursuant to RPAPL article 15 to determine claims to real property, the defendants Denise M. Rivera and Indymac Bank, FSB, appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Joseph, J.), dated May 24, 2004, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Maritone Carasig-Carlos, New York, N.Y., for appellants. James F. Woods Associates, P.C.,

  9. First Natl Bank of Nevada v. Williams

    74 A.D.3d 740 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)   Cited 39 times

    No. 2009-10793. June 1, 2010. In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Evelyn A. Gay, also known as A. Gay Evelyn, appeals, as limited by her brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lane, J.), dated October 28, 2009, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against her and, in effect, denied, as academic, her cross motion to consolidate the instant action with an action to set aside the

  10. Wu v. Wu

    288 A.D.2d 104 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)   Cited 49 times

    November 20, 2001. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered April 27, 2001, which granted plaintiff's motion to renew and reargue a prior order dismissing the action against defendants Wong and Zhou and, upon reargument, adhered to its original determination, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny the underlying motion to dismiss, the complaint reinstated, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered September 20, 2000, insofar as it denied