april 15, 2008 - Criminal Law Library Blog

More documents

Recommendations

Info

his right to sue defendants for breach of contract were unsubstantiated, and thus insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment on this point (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: APRIL <strong>15</strong>, <strong>2008</strong> _______________________ CLERK 16
Lippman, P.J., Tom, Williams, Acosta, JJ. 3397 Lauren Shapiro, Index 405160/06 Petitioner-Appellant, -against- Ira Sanders, Respondent-Respondent. _________________________ Lauren Shapiro, appellant pro se. Ira Sanders, respondent pro se. _________________________ Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered April 3, 2007, which denied petitioner’s application to vacate an arbitration award awarding respondent a downward modification of child support and denying petitioner’s claims for child support arrears and an upward modification of child support, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Under the parties’ 1996 separation agreement incorporated but not merged into their 1996 judgment of divorce, petitioner was awarded custody of both the parties’ son and daughter. For reasons not presently in issue, respondent was given temporary custody of the son in 1999. Respondent continued to pay the child support directed in the judgment until March 2004, when, three months after having been awarded permanent custody of the son, he sought a downward modification based on the son’s change of custody. Petitioner moved for an upward modification based on an alleged increase in respondent’s earnings. Pursuant to an 17
Page 1 and 2: SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION F
Page 3 and 4: Lippman, P.J., Tom, Williams, Acost
Page 5 and 6: Danann Realty Corp. v Harris, 5 NY2
Page 7 and 8: Circle Rubbish launched “a force
Page 9 and 10: classes, and scheduling visits with
Page 13 and 14: was cut too deep. Defendants’ the
Page 15: Lippman, P.J., Tom, Williams, Acost
Page 21 and 22: witnesses and collective tailoring
Page 23 and 24: stipulated to the grounds, and the
Page 29 and 30: Mullaney v Wilbur, 421 US 684 [1975
Page 33 and 34: liability claims “share few, if a
Page 35 and 36: ecords of drug transactions and def
Page 37 and 38: argument that this testimony invade
Page 39 and 40: in the 12 hours prior to plaintiff
Page 41 and 42: individual as the sole tenant in th
Page 43 and 44: opposed the motion, and pending the
Page 45 and 46: that defendant’s vehicle was regi
Page 47 and 48: arrests respectively. In fact, one
Page 49 and 50: inmate-victim who vaguely claimed t
Page 51 and 52: CATTERSON, J. (dissenting) Because
Page 53 and 54: person that’s in the cell closest
Page 55 and 56: evidence that anyone had intimidate
Page 57 and 58: him. See People v. Harte, 29 A.D.3d
Page 59 and 60: summary judgment on his Labor Law
Page 61 and 62: aise a triable issue as to construc
Page 63 and 64: specific substance of the conversat
Page 65 and 66: Gonzalez, J.P., Williams, Catterson
Page 67 and 68:
Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman
Page 69 and 70:
interest of justice. As an alternat
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
leave to amend the complaint to ass
Page 79 and 80:
in the first degree. After being de
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
decline to review it in the interes
Page 85 and 86:
panelist understood that he needed
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
to be compensated for its services
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Lippman, P.J., Saxe, Nardelli, Will
Page 101 and 102:
Lippman, P.J., Tom, Mazzarelli, And
Page 103 and 104:
Tom, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Gonza
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Gonzalez, J.P., Nardelli, Buckley,
Page 109:
The Following Orders Were Entered A
show all

april 15, 2008 - Criminal Law Library Blog

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?