Filter This View

  • June 3, 2011 | New York Law Journal

    City Ordered to Pay Rent Subsidies for Ex-Homeless During Appeal

    New York City must continue paying subsidies to 15,000 formerly-homeless families while a Manhattan appellate court considers arguments by the Legal Aid Society that it is contractually obligated t

    1 minute read

  • January 19, 2010 | New York Law Journal

    'Good Faith' Can Support Commissions, Panel Decides

    Employees may invoke an implied covenant of good faith to defeat contractual provisions barring them from collecting previously earned commissions after they have left their companies, a unanimous

    1 minute read

  • Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Appalachian Asset Mgt. Corp., 9204

    Publication Date: 2013-08-06
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Court: Appellate Division, First Department
    Judge: Justice David B. Saxe
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: For Appalachian Asset Management Corp., appellant-respondent: Jennifer M. Oliver, Randi W. Singer and Andrey Spektor of counsel, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York.
    for defendant: For William Messmore, appellant-respondent: Robert A. O'Hare Jr., Jeffrey S. Lichtman, Andrew C. Levitt and Michael Zarocostas of counsel, O'Hare Parnagian LLP, New York. For Douglas McBeth, appellant-respondent: Gregory J. Bevelock, Alice M. Penna and Jeffrey D. Smith of counsel, DeCotiis, Fitzpatrick & Cole, LLP, Spring Valley. For Sameer Garg, appellant-respondent: M. William Munno, John J. Galban and Celinda Metro of counsel, Seward & Kissel LLP, New York. For respondent-appellant/ respondent: Jason D. Frank, Jordan D. Hershman, Harold S. Horwich and Derek Care of counsel, Bingham McCutchen LLP, New York.
    Case Number: 9204

    Cite as: Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Appalachian Asset Mgt. Corp., 9204, NYLJ 1202613579795, at *1 (App. Div., 1st, Decided July 30, 2013) 9204 Justice

  • January 20, 2009 | New York Law Journal

    Panel Revisits Derivative Standards, This Time Upholding Dismissal

    The dismissal of a derivative class action suit over alleged stock options backdating at Bed Bath & Beyond has been upheld by a state appeals court, which found that shareholders fai

    1 minute read