Cases

Pastier v C.A.C. Indus., Inc. (2022 NY Slip Op 02812) Pastier v C.A.C. Indus., Inc. 2022 NY Slip Op 02812 Decided on April 27, 2022 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary

DOYLE, Judge. Before this Court are the consolidated appeals of the Department of Transportation (DOT) and Anjo Construction Company from an order of the Board of Claims (Board) awarding Anjo $2,116,368.14 in damages plus 6% interest on a construction contract claim. On July 11, 1986, DOT contracted with Anjo to rehabilitate the Highland Park Bridge located in the Pittsburgh area. The bridge is the second bu

WEKSELMAN, J., — Plaintiff, Anjo Construction Company, entered into a contract with defendant, Port Authority of Allegheny County, to construct the shell of the Midtown Station of the Light Rail Transit System in Downtown Pittsburgh. Work was done between July 1981 and November 1983. The contract provides for adjustments in the amount of money to be paid for the work. Compensation may be adjusted on t

KANNE, Circuit Judge. Murdock & Sons Construction, Inc. (“Murdock”) was the subcontractor in a construction contract. Murdock was to perform all of the masonry work for a maximum security prison for the State of Indiana (the “State”). Unfortunately for Murdock, its union masons did not work nearly as fast as was projected in the original bid, for reasons that were never dete

I.P. v Bonilla (2023 NY Slip Op 02528) I.P. v Bonilla 2023 NY Slip Op 02528 Decided on May 10, 2023 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

J-A24010-22 2023 PA Super 13 JASON YODER : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : MCCARTHY CONSTRUCTION, INC.; : CASTELLI MECHANICAL DESIGN AND : CATANIA ENGINEERING : No. 1605 EDA

Dziadaszek v Legacy Stratford, LLC (2019 NY Slip Op 08029) Dziadaszek v Legacy Stratford, LLC 2019 NY Slip Op 08029 Decided on November 8, 2019 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State Law Repor

OPINION PRATTER, District Judge. In Joe Hand Promotions, Inc.’s (“Joe Hand”) Renewed Motion for Default Judgment (Docket No. 14), Joe Hand seeks statutory and enhanced damages for Cafe Nostalgie and Victor Yakubets’s unlawful interception of cable programming under 47 U.S.C. § 553(a)(1);1 vicarious liability against Mr. Yakubets; and leave to move for attorneys’ fees and costs. B

Dos Anjos v Palagonia (2018 NY Slip Op 06514) Dos Anjos v Palagonia 2018 NY Slip Op 06514 Decided on October 3, 2018 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Jud

973 A.2d 1061 (2009) WAYNE KNORR, INC., Petitioner v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Respondent. Department of Transportation, Petitioner v. Wayne Knorr, Inc., Respondent. No. 1593 C.D. 2008, No. 1598 C.D. 2008. Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Submitted on Briefs December 26, 2008. Decided May 14, 2009. *

RESTANI, Judge: Thais Cardoso Almeida brought this action against Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”) for displaying her image on its websites in furtherance of its sale of the book Anjos Proibidos. Almeida asserted claims against Amazon pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 540.08 (West 2006), for civil theft pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 772.11 (West 2006), and under Florida’s com

RESTANI, Judge. Kyocera Corp. (“Kyocera”), a Japanese corporation, appeals from the March 6, 2001 Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California confirming an award by an Arbitration Tribunal of the International Chamber of Commerce (the “Tribunal”) in favor of Prudential Bache Trade Corp. (“Prudential Trade”), LaPine Technology Corp. (“La-Pine”) and LaPine Holding Company on their claims th

Stearns, J. INTRODUCTION This case came on for trial before the undersigned justice on May 18, 1993. Following five days of testimony, the parties submitted proposed findings of fact and rulings of law. Final arguments were heard on July 30, 1993. The lawsuit arose out of the refusal of the defendant Subaru of New England (SNE) to renew the dealer franchise of the plaintiff Blackstone

61 B.R. 182 (1986) In re 48TH STREET STEAKHOUSE, INC., Debtor. 48TH STREET STEAKHOUSE, INC., Plaintiff, v. ROCKEFELLER CENTER, INC., Rockefeller Center Properties, I.S.H. Liquidating Corp. and Dornbush, Mensch & Mandelstam, Defendants. Bankruptcy No. 83 B 11070 (TLB), Adv. No. 83-5915A. United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York. May 22, 1986. As Cor

Barbu v Doyle (2026 NY Slip Op 00487) Barbu v Doyle 2026 NY Slip Op 00487 Decided on February 4, 2026 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and s

CIRILLO, President Judge Emeritus. Samuel and Fay Lascio (the Lascios) appeal from an order granting Appellee Barclay-White, Inc.’s (Barclay-White) motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (j.n.o.v.) on the basis that it was a statutory employer. We reverse and remand for a new trial limited to the issue of whether Samuel Lascio was an employee or independent contractor of Barclay-White. Appellee, Bar

721 F.Supp. 17 (1989) PRIDE CHRYSLER PLYMOUTH, INC., and Blackstone Subaru, Inc., d/b/a Blackstone Subaru, Plaintiffs, v. RHODE ISLAND MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERS' LICENSE COMMISSION, Defendant. Civ. A. No. 88-0298 L. United States District Court, D. Rhode Island. September 6, 1989. Patrick Quinlan, Providence, R.I., for plaintiffs. *1

(2008) James M. CADY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ANTHEM BLUE CROSS LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants. No. C 08-2753 CW. United States District Court, N.D. California. October 2, 2008. ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS CLAUDIA WILKEN, District Judge. Defendants

299 F.3d 769 KYOCERA CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant,v.PRUDENTIAL-BACHE TRADE SERVICES, INC., formerly Prudential-Bache Trade Corporation, Prudential Capital & Investment Services, Inc., LaPine Technology Corporation, and LaPine Holding Company, Inc., Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees.LaPine Technology Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Kyocera Corporation, Defendant-Appellant.LaPine Technology Cor

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________ No. 05-3036 MURDOCK & SONS CONSTRUCTION, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GOHEEN GENERAL CONSTRUCTION, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees. ____________ Appeal from the United States District Co