Evan H Krinick

March 04, 2011 | New York Law Journal

In his Insurance Fraud column, Evan H. Krinick, a partner Rivkin Radler, writes that the typical prior knowledge exclusion requires notification of potential claims against the insured that go beyond malpractice claims and includes potential claims against professionals arising out of their clients' fraudulent conduct.

By Evan H. Krinick

12 minute read

April 10, 2007 | New York Law Journal

Evan H. Krinick, a partner at Rivkin Radler, writes that in view of the serious consequences involved in foreclosure disputes, they often reach into both state and federal appellate courts where a variety of issues have recently been addressed.

By Evan H. Krinick

9 minute read

September 13, 2005 | New York Law Journal

Evan H. Krinick, a partner with Rivkin Radler, reviews several recent Second Department cases involving Long Island's hot commercial and residential real estate markets, including breach of contract actions, requests to recover down payments, and complaints seeking specific performance of real estate sales agreements.

By Evan H. Krinick

7 minute read

August 22, 2011 | New York Law Journal

Rivkin Radler partner Evan H. Krinick writes: The New York Court of Appeals' nine significant insurance law rulings last term displayed no discernible theme, evidenced no apparent trend, and reflected no obvious insurance law philosophy. The diversity in these cases may be the one feature that unifies them. In essence, the very breadth and scope of the Court's insurance law cases illustrate the importance of insurance and insurance law to a growing swath of businesses and individuals across New York.

By Evan H. Krinick

13 minute read

October 12, 2004 | New York Law Journal

Evan H. Krinick, a partner with Rivkin Radler, writes that appeals in contract cases may involve a broad � and virtually unlimited � diversity of legal issues, as reflected in recent state and federal court appellate decisions in contract disputes filed in Long Island courts.

By Evan H. Krinick

11 minute read

November 08, 2005 | New York Law Journal

Evan H. Krinick and Pia E. Riverso, partners at Rivkin Radler, review recent Second Department rulings involving divorce, separation, child custody, support, or equitable distribution issues.

By Evan H. Krinick and Pia E. Riverso

7 minute read

April 05, 2002 | New York Law Journal

Lawsuits are often resolved through a stipulation of settlement. However, as suggested by a variety of recent decisions in Long Island cases by the Appellate Division, Second Department, that does not mean that the court battles are necessarily over. In some cases, litigation continues over the terms, meaning, validity and enforceability of a stipulation of settlement itself.

By Evan H. Krinick

8 minute read

July 10, 2007 | New York Law Journal

Evan H. Krinick, a partner with Rivkin Radler, writes: Attorneys handling appeals in New York courts should be quite familiar with the Civil Procedure Law and Rules, which are frequently at the heart of Appellate Division rulings. A review of recent appeals in cases arising in Long Island courts illustrates the broad range of the CPLR, the sections most commonly at issue, and a number of significant, but less commonly seen, sections of note.

By Evan H. Krinick

10 minute read

January 02, 2009 | New York Law Journal

Evan H. Krinick, a partner at Rivkin Radler, writes that insurance fraud continues to be a subject of great interest to regulators, insurance companies, and policyholders and will be for years to come. Efforts to combat insurance fraud likely will result in litigation in state and federal courts in New York, and around the country, with varied results, he warns.

By Evan H. Krinick

11 minute read

September 02, 2011 | New York Law Journal

In his Insurance Fraud column, Rivkin Radler partner Evan H. Krinick writes: The rule that an insurer seeking to rescind an insurance contract for fraud must return premiums it had received is long established in New York. But what benefit does the rule provide? Does not such a rule provide incentive to procure policies by fraud, since there is no financial loss if the fraud is timely discovered and acted upon by the insurer? A recent Eighth Circuit decision suggests the viability of not requiring the return of premiums in such cases.

By Evan H. Krinick

8 minute read