0 results for ''Zeichner Ellman Krause''
Cite as: Benzemann v. Citibank N.A., 14‐2668‐cv, NYLJ 1202742986754, at *1 (2d Cir., Decided November 16, 2015) CASENAME Alexander A. Benzemann, Plaintiff‐Appe
Cite as: Benzemann ibank, 14‐2668‐cv, NYLJ 1202742618967, at *1 (2d Cir., Decided November 16, 2015)CASE NAMEAlexander A. Benzemann, Plaintiff‐Appellant
Circuit Clarifies Statute of Limitations on Debt Claims
The clock for claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act starts running when the bank freezes a debtor's account, not when the notice of debt is served, a federal appeals court has held.Circuit Clarifies Statute of Limitations on Debt Claims
The clock for claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act starts running when the bank freezes a debtor's account, not when the notice of debt is served, a federal appeals court has held.Judge Tosses 'Sophisticated' Investor's Fraud Claim
An investor who claimed he was defrauded of $4 million had his case dismissed by Manhattan Commercial Division Justice Anil Singh, who said it is "not the court's role to insulate sophisticated business entities from the consequences of their own risky investments."Judge Tosses 'Sophisticated' Investor's Fraud Claim
An investor who claimed he was defrauded of $4 million had his case dismissed by Manhattan Commercial Division Justice Anil Singh, who said it is "not the court's role to insulate sophisticated business entities from the consequences of their own risky investments."New Commercial Division Deposition Rule to Take Effect
New rules that seek to encourage business and government agencies to produce deponents who can most effectively address inquiries about an entity's practices with respect to the issues in the case were announced Thursday and will take effect Dec. 1.New Commercial Division Deposition Rule to Take Effect
New rules that seek to encourage business and government agencies to produce deponents who can most effectively address inquiries about an entity's practices with respect to the issues in the case were announced Thursday and will take effect Dec. 1.Cite as: Proactive v. TD Bank, 3053/10, NYLJ 1202738919978, at *1 (App. Div., 2nd, Decided September 30, 2015)CASE NAMEProactive Dealer Services, Inc., Appella
Panel Finds Factual Issue in Testimony on Withdrawal
A divided Second Department panel ruled a bank had presented an issue of fact as to whether it had properly debited a customer's checking account for $50,000 based on a phone authorization the customer denied ever giving.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
Creating a Culture of Compliance
Brought to you by Ironclad
Download Now
A Buyer's Guide to Law Firm Software
Brought to you by PracticePanther
Download Now