Sign in to follow
Search Results

0 results for 'Gair, Gair, Conason, Steigman, Mackauf, Bloom & Rubinowitz'

You can use to get even better search results
April 04, 2012 |

Commission clears jurist of misconduct but calls for reform of hiring practices

Presiding Justice Luis Gonzalez was cleared of any misconduct in connection with allegations that he misrepresented his residency to claim a tax credit and that he put a no-show employee on the state payroll.
7 minute read
April 03, 2012 |

Commission Clears Gonzalez of Misconduct But Calls for Reform of Hiring Practices

The Commission on Judicial Conduct has cleared Presiding Justice Luis Gonzalez of any misconduct in connection with allegations that he misrepresented his residency to claim a tax credit and that he put a no-show employee on the state payroll. But the commission was deeply critical of First Department hiring practices, saying it was a "closed process" that resulted in a system of favoritism and nepotism.
7 minute read
October 26, 2000 |

The Opening Statement

The opening statement is your first real opportunity to speak directly to the jury about the merits of your case. Your ability to capture the jury's attention at the outset, gain their respect, and structure the case in your terms will often dictate the final result. A fine-tuned opening can help you lay out your case. A high impact opening can win it.
14 minute read
Davy v. Schiffer, 112266/05
Publication Date: 2008-06-06
Practice Area: Torts
Industry:
Court: Supreme Court, New York County
Judge: Joan Carey
Attorneys:
For plaintiff:
For defendant:
Case number: 112266/05

Justice Joan B. Carey NEW YORK COUNTY Supreme Court Plaintiffs were sented by Gair, Gair, Conason, Steigman & Mackauf, Esqs. Peltz & Walker

October 09, 2013 |

Backers of Judicial Retirement Changes Raise $350,000

The Justice for All 2013 committee reported to the state Board of Elections that the bulk of its donations—$277,000—was received from law firms, with the largest benefactor so far being Kramer, Dillof, Livingston & Moore.
4 minute read
May 06, 2011 |

Verdict Search

Verdicts and settlements in New Jersey state and federal courts.
8 minute read
Milliken & Co. et al., Respondents v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Appellant, and City of New York et al., Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.), 84 N.Y.2d 469 (1994)
Publication Date: 2012-11-19
Practice Area: Appeals
Industry:
Court: Court of Appeals, New York County
Judge: Before: Ch.J Kaye and J.J Simons, Titone, Smith, Levine and Ciparick Concur.
Attorneys:
For plaintiff:
For defendant: Maura A. Kilroy, New York City, and Richard W. Babinecz for appellant in the first, second and third above-entitled actions. Paul A. Crotty, Corporation Counsel of New York City (Michael McLoughlin and Stephen J. McGrath of counsel), for City of New York, respondent in the first, second and third aboveentitled actions. Kornstein Veisz & Wexler, New York City (Joel Bossom, Marvin Wexler, Lawrence C. Fox and Emily Rosdeitcher of counsel), and Stuart S. Sherman for Empire City Subway Company (Limited) and another, respondents in the first, second and third above-entitled actions. Wien, Malkin & Bettex, New York City (Douglas D. Aronin and Eli R. Mattioli of counsel), and Smith, Mazure, Director, Wilkins Young, Yagerman & Tarallo, P. C., for HelmsleySpear, Inc., and others, respondents in the first, second and third above-entitled actions. Gair, Gair, Conason Steigman & Mackauf, New York City (Rhonda E. Kay of counsel), for Milliken & Co. and others, respondents in the first and second above-entitled actions. Bigham Englar Jones & Houston, New York City (James J. Taylor and Elaine P. Chryssochoos of counsel), for I.S.K. Manhattan, Inc., and others, respondents in the third above-entitled action. Huber Lawrence & Abell, New York City (John D. Draghi and Michael Zaitz of counsel), for Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation and others, amici curiae, in the first, second and third above-entitled actions.
Case number: 84 N.Y.2d 469 (1994)

Cite as: Milliken & Co. et al. v. Consolidated Edison Co. of NY, Inc., 84 N.Y.2d 469 (1994), NYLJ 1202578801965, at *1 (Ct. of App., NY, Decided December 1, 1994)p cla

February 18, 2011 |

News In Brief

5 minute read
February 09, 2010 |

Dealing With Weaknesses and Maintaining Credibility

In all cases, however, where you have legitimate concern that certain tangential facts can affect the verdict, we strongly advise getting them out there first. Despite the difficult nature of initiating the topic, often the effort will be rewarded with a favorable verdict.
8 minute read

More from ALM

More from ALM

Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.

Resources

  • Good Legal Technology is Good Business: A Case for Bringing Employment Issues In-House

    Brought to you by LexisNexis®

    Download Now

  • Insights and Strategies for Effective Succession Planning in AM Law 100 Firms

    Brought to you by Gallagher

    Download Now

  • State AI Legislation Is on the Move in 2024

    Brought to you by LexisNexis®

    Download Now

  • 2024 ESI Risk Management & Litigation Readiness Report

    Brought to you by Pagefreezer

    Download Now

NEXT