Cohen motion in New York

2024This Court will apply the standards applicable to a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 ( see Garner v China Natural Gas, Inc. , 71 AD3d 825, 826 ).

2024Initially, we note that the Supreme Court erred by applying the standard for a motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 to that branch of Cohen's motion which was to dismiss the second cause of action ( see Velez v Captain Luna's Mar. , 74 AD3d 1191, 1191 ).

2024Corp. , 85 AD3d 850, 851 , quoting Jim-Mar Corp. v Aquatic Constr. , 195 AD2d 868, 869 ).

2024Corp. , 85 AD3d 850, 851 , quoting Jim-Mar Corp. v Aquatic Constr. , 195 AD2d 868, 869 ).

2010Significant progress had been made in the cases and substantial discovery had been conducted, and the numerous proposed defenses would have necessitated no small measure of additional discovery (compare Antwerpse Diamantbank N.V. v Nissel, 27 AD3d 207 [2006]).

2008Accordingly, the Surrogate’s Court should have granted that branch of Cohen’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the objections asserted against him as related to the period from April 26, 2001 through December 31, 2003, when the Preis brothers were his cotrastees (see Jones v Blun, 145 NY at 341 ; Matter of Niles, 113 NY at 559 ; Zimmerman v Pokart, 242 AD2d 202 [1997]; Matter of Allen, 280 App Div 868 [1952], affd 306 NY 720 [1954]).

2008Accordingly, the Surrogate’s Court should have granted that branch of Cohen’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the objections asserted against him as related to the period from April 26, 2001 through December 31, 2003, when the Preis brothers were his cotrastees (see Jones v Blun, 145 NY at 341 ; Matter of Niles, 113 NY at 559 ; Zimmerman v Pokart, 242 AD2d 202 [1997]; Matter of Allen, 280 App Div 868 [1952], affd 306 NY 720 [1954]).

2008Accordingly, the Surrogate’s Court should have granted that branch of Cohen’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the objections asserted against him as related to the period from April 26, 2001 through December 31, 2003, when the Preis brothers were his cotrastees (see Jones v Blun, 145 NY at 341 ; Matter of Niles, 113 NY at 559 ; Zimmerman v Pokart, 242 AD2d 202 [1997]; Matter of Allen, 280 App Div 868 [1952], affd 306 NY 720 [1954]).

2008Accordingly, the Surrogate’s Court should have granted that branch of Cohen’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the objections asserted against him as related to the period from April 26, 2001 through December 31, 2003, when the Preis brothers were his cotrastees (see Jones v Blun, 145 NY at 341 ; Matter of Niles, 113 NY at 559 ; Zimmerman v Pokart, 242 AD2d 202 [1997]; Matter of Allen, 280 App Div 868 [1952], affd 306 NY 720 [1954]).

2008Accordingly, the Surrogate’s Court should have granted that branch of Cohen’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the objections asserted against him as related to the period from April 26, 2001 through December 31, 2003, when the Preis brothers were his cotrastees (see Jones v Blun, 145 NY at 341 ; Matter of Niles, 113 NY at 559 ; Zimmerman v Pokart, 242 AD2d 202 [1997]; Matter of Allen, 280 App Div 868 [1952], affd 306 NY 720 [1954]).

2002(Cohen, supra at 694 .) In examining the Beige/Cohen factors, it is clear a connection to the murder would have affected the defendant’s life and could subsequently create some potential liability for his estate, if indeed one exists.

1995Claimant has failed to satisfy his burden of proving that the law firm of Tenzer Greenblatt and counsel Greilsheimer are both appearing for and opposing a client "on substantially related matters [in which] the client’s interests are adverse” (Solow v Grace & Co., 83 NY2d 303, 306 ).

1992"Generally, where a client requests that those papers in the possession of his former attorney, who was not discharged for cause, be returned to him, the attorney is entitled to be paid for the value of his services or otherwise have the sum owed secured before any turnover may be enforced” (Pileggi v Pileggi, 127 AD2d 751 ; Rosen v Rosen, 97 AD2d 837 ; Gamble v Gamble, 78 AD2d 673 ).

1992"Generally, where a client requests that those papers in the possession of his former attorney, who was not discharged for cause, be returned to him, the attorney is entitled to be paid for the value of his services or otherwise have the sum owed secured before any turnover may be enforced” (Pileggi v Pileggi, 127 AD2d 751 ; Rosen v Rosen, 97 AD2d 837 ; Gamble v Gamble, 78 AD2d 673 ).

1992"Generally, where a client requests that those papers in the possession of his former attorney, who was not discharged for cause, be returned to him, the attorney is entitled to be paid for the value of his services or otherwise have the sum owed secured before any turnover may be enforced” (Pileggi v Pileggi, 127 AD2d 751 ; Rosen v Rosen, 97 AD2d 837 ; Gamble v Gamble, 78 AD2d 673 ).

1989However, since plaintiff apparently did not file a notice of appeal, we are foreclosed from considering this argument (see, Davis v State of New York, 124 AD2d 420, 423 ).

1981(Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assn. of City of N.Y. v City of New York, 27 NY2d 410, 415 .) In this proceeding, emphasis must be placed upon the affidavit of Josef Mittleman, vice-president of Cohen Brothers Realty & Construction Corp. and an associate of the Cohen defendants.

1978The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed and granted the motion of the claimant herein for summary judgment against Cohen on the issue of liability (Teddy's Drive In v Cohen, 54 AD2d 898 ).

1976Bank of Yonkers v County Dollar Corp., 43 AD2d 327 , affd 35 NY2d 836 ), and hold that plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment against Cohen on the question of liability.

1976Bank of Yonkers v County Dollar Corp., 43 AD2d 327 , affd 35 NY2d 836 ), and hold that plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment against Cohen on the question of liability.