Cases

Matter of South Blooming Grove Fire Dist. v Village of S. Blooming Grove (2025 NY Slip Op 00454) Matter of South Blooming Grove Fire Dist. v Village of S. Blooming Grove 2025 NY Slip Op 00454 Decided on January 29, 2025 Appellate Division, Second Department <

OMNIBUS ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BETH BLOOM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC’s *1176Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [50] (the “Motion”) and Plaintiffs, John Lage and Maria Mantilla’s Motion to Strike D

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BETH BLOOM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This cause is before the Court upon Defendants, BPI Sports, LLC and BPI Sports Holdings, LLC’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. [48] (“Motion”). The Court has reviewed the Motion, all supporting and opposing filings, the record in this case, and convened the parties for oral argument on February 18, 2016 i

ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BETH BLOOM, District Judge THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Branch Banking and Trust Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [143], (“BB & T Motion”) and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Defendant’s Fifth, Sixth, Thirty-Eighth, and Thirty-Ninth Affirmative Defenses, ECF No. [138] (“Plaintiffs’ Motion”) (collectively

May Dock Lane, LLC v Harras Bloom & Archer, LLP (2023 NY Slip Op 06244) May Dock Lane, LLC v Harras Bloom & Archer, LLP 2023 NY Slip Op 06244 Decided on December 6, 2023 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York St

Lee H. Rosenthal, Chief United States District Judge This is a contractual-indemnity dispute arising out of underlying wrongful-death and personal-injury lawsuits filed after a crane accident in September 2017. The underlying plaintiffs sued the Teichman Group, LLC, T & T Offshore, Inc.,1 and OSG Lightering, LLC,2 seeking damages for the deaths and injuries. OSG Lighterin

BP PRUCENTER ACQUISITON LLC, vs. SAKS FIFTH AVENUE LLC, MISC 20-000353 BP PRUCENTER ACQUISITON LLC, Plaintiff, v. SAKS FIFTH AVENUE LLC, Defendant MISC 20-000353 JANUARY 29, 2021 SUFFOLK, ss. ROBERTS, J. MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON SAKS FIFTH AVENUE LLC'S MASS. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1) MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUB

SUPERIOR COURT MICHAEL GERHARDT AND LAUREN SEAVERNS v. ROBERT S. BURR; COLLEGE STREET PARTNERS, LLC; 140 COMMONWEALTH AVENUE – DANVERS, LLC; AND HAWTHORNE HILL DEVELOPMENT LLC Docket: 2184CV01017-BLS2 Dates:

BP PRUCENTER ACQUISITON LLC, vs. SAKS FIFTH AVENUE LLC, MISC 20-000353 BP PRUCENTER ACQUISITON LLC, Plaintiff, v. SAKS FIFTH AVENUE LLC, Defendant MISC 20-000353 JANUARY 29, 2021 SUFFOLK, ss. ROBERTS, J. MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON SAKS FIFTH AVENUE LLC'S MASS. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1) MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUB

In an action to recover upon a guaranty, commenced by motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, the defendant appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pines, J.), dated January 22, 2015, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction, and (2) an order of the same court, also dated January 22, 2015, w

United States Tax Court 164 T.C. No. 6 RANCH SPRINGS, LLC, RANCH SPRINGS INVESTORS, LLC, TAX MATTERS PARTNER, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent __________ Docket No. 11794-21. Filed March 31, 2025. ————— P is

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

Opinion THE COURT.* Defendant and appellant Michael Romero (Defendant) appeals the judgment entered against him and in favor of plaintiff and respondent Midland Funding LLC (Plaintiff) in a collection action. Defendant argues the trial court erred in overruling his objections to Plaintiffs declaration in lieu of testimony because (1) the declarant, Kenneth Smith, was not availabl

BETH BLOOM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE *1324THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum of Law in Support by Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. ("Teva" or "Defendant") on September 25, 2017. ECF No. [11] ("Motion"). The Court has carefully reviewed the Motion, all opposing and supporting

Peterson, Justice. Alexander Hamilton famously observed in Federalist 78 that courts “have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment.” Notwithstanding this general principle, the Georgia Constitution does confer on us some carefully defined room for the exercise of will: it vests in this Court the power to approve rules for each class of court in this State. That is a policymaking power. We can approve or disapprove a prop

CUÉLLAR, J. *614 The City of Carson (City) hired Rand Resources as its agent to negotiate with the National Football League (NFL) about the *615 possibility of building a football stadium i

ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS BETH BLOOM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This cause is before the Court upon Defendant Smith & Nephew, Inc’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint (“Motion”), ECF No. [32]. The Court has considered the Motion, all supporting and opposing filings, including Plaintiff Joseph Mink’s Response (“PI. Resp.”), ECF No. [33], and Defendant’s Reply (“Def.

Beadell v Eros Mgt. Reality, LLC (2024 NY Slip Op 02496) Beadell v Eros Mgt. Reality, LLC 2024 NY Slip Op 02496 Decided on May 07, 2024 Appellate Division, First Department Pitt-Burke, J. Published by New

Thomas B. McNamara, United States Bankruptcy Judge This dispute proceeds at the somewhat confounding intersection of bankruptcy and limited liability company law. An individual debtor filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11. He was the sole member of a limited liability company which, itself, filed for protection under Chapter 11. The individual debtor died. Thereafter, the Court converted his individual case to a liquidati

Madison Gold, LLC v GFE NY, LLC 2026 NY Slip Op 04495 July 22, 2026 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. Madison Gold, LLC, respondent, v GFE NY, LLC, doing business as Global Fund Experts, et al., defendants, White Road Capital,