• Foster v. Nuffer

    Publication Date: 2022-12-05
    Practice Area: Real Estate
    Industry: Real Estate
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Bowes
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 2017 EDA 2021

    Second trial judge could grant a previously-denied motion to confirm arbitration award where internal appellate process had been closed and the arbitration panel considered the award final, requiring the trial court to confirm the award and rendering the initial denial of the motion erroneous. Order of the trial court affirmed.

  • Wolfe v. Reading Blue Mountain & N. R.R. Co.

    Publication Date: 2022-11-28
    Practice Area: Real Estate
    Industry: Transportation
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge Covey
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 649 C.D. 2022

    Trial court erred in sustaining property owners' preliminary objections to railroad's declaration of taking because the taking was for a public purpose, owners could not raise their claim of a de facto taking via preliminary objection, and the taking was not in bad faith but trial court properly found that security railroad offered was not adequate. Reversed and remanded.

  • Johnson v. LSF9 Master Participation Trust

    Publication Date: 2022-11-28
    Practice Area: Real Estate
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Street
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 00062

    The court granted defendant's request for an appeal of a default judgment after pro se plaintiff failed to accurately name defendant in the caption, body, and service of the complaint.

  • Okkelberg v. Architectural Dev. LLC

    Publication Date: 2022-11-21
    Practice Area: Real Estate
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lycoming County
    Judge: Judge Linhardt
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 21-01104

    The court partially granted a motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiff could not bring an action to quiet title as plaintiff failed to establish that they were in "possession" of the disputed property at the time the complaint was filed. The court rather found that defendants were in possession of the property due to the fact that they routinely maintained the property, had placed a no trespassing sign on the property, and their land survey revealed that their property slightly encroached onto the disputed parcel.

  • Custodio v. Mabrantes, LLC

    Publication Date: 2022-11-14
    Practice Area: Real Estate
    Industry: Construction | Real Estate
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Monroe County
    Judge: Judge Williamson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 2094 CIVIL 2022

    While the allegations in plaintiff's complaint lacked factual averments to support piercing the corporate veil of the defendant corporation to reach its sole member, the pleading alleged sufficient facts to allow plaintiff's claims against the individual defendant to go forward based upon the participation theory. The court overruled defendants' preliminary objections.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    New York Employment Law 2023

    Authors: Daniel A. Cohen, Joshua Feinstein

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Vindancar, LLC v. Hanyon

    Publication Date: 2022-11-14
    Practice Area: Real Estate
    Industry: Insurance | Real Estate
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Monroe County
    Judge: Judge Williamson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 5564 CIVIL 2016

    Court granted motion for reconsideration and summary judgment finding that defendants were able to show that previous foreclosures and judgments on the property had resulted in a merger, clearing the property's title of liens giving rise to the dispute.

  • Ionilli v. Carnovale

    Publication Date: 2022-11-07
    Practice Area: Real Estate
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
    Judge: Judge Hodge
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 10473 OF 2020, C.A.

    Court granted injunctive relief on the grounds that plaintiffs had properly established that the deed in question intended plaintiffs to have access to a 50-foot strip of land. Outside of the deed, the court further granted injunctive relief on the grounds that plaintiffs had established the need for an easement by necessity.

  • Jie v. Pennsylvania Dep't of Transp.

    Publication Date: 2022-10-31
    Practice Area: Real Estate
    Industry: Real Estate | State and Local Government
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Allegheny County
    Judge: Judge Hertzberg
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 719 CD 2022

    Court affirmed decision granting plaintiff landowner's request for a board of reviewers to be appointed to oversee the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation's demolition of a pedestrian bridge which effectively landlocked plaintiff. Although defendants argued they were using their police powers when demolishing the bridge, the court disagreed, finding defendant's actions under the circumstances were unreasonable.

  • Biros v. Am. Harness Tracks, LLC

    Publication Date: 2022-10-31
    Practice Area: Real Estate
    Industry: Real Estate
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
    Judge: Judge Hodge
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 70066 of 2022, MD

    Plaintiff failed to establish the first factor required for the maintenance of a lis pendens upon real property, that title to the property was at issue in this litigation; therefore, the court was not required to address the second relevant factor, a balancing of the equities involved. The court denied plaintiff's motion for lis pendens.

  • Nowak v. Smith

    Publication Date: 2022-10-31
    Practice Area: Real Estate
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Monroe County
    Judge: Judge Williamson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 317 CIVIL 2021

    The court granted plaintiff's request for specific performance regarding a real estate contract. Defendant failed to appear on the closing date and/or respond to plaintiff's request for enforcement of the contract. Plaintiff had already paid a down payment on the property and was ready, willing, and able to take possession of the property on the closing date. Defendant did not appear at the closing and defendant's whereabouts were unknown. Plaintiff initiated an action, seeking specific performance.