• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Displaying 24-38 of 1,863 results

No. 6262

Document Imerys Talc America, Inc., 1:19-bk-10289, No. 6262 (Bankr.D.Del. May. 10, 2024)

cite Cite Document

NOTICE OF ENTRY

Document Tiffany and Company et al v. LLOYD'S OF LONDON SYNDICATES 33, 510, 609, 780, 1084, 1225, 1414, 1686, 1861, 1969, 2001, 2012, 2232, 2488, 2987, 3000, 3623, 4444, 4472, and 4711, 65...
The “cherished status” pets hold in society transforms the proprietary inquiry into an analysis of multiple Sere including the best interest of the animal (see Raymond v Lachmann, 264 AD2d 340, 341 [1% Dept 1999]).> Today, the “best for all concerned”analysis is the standard ofreview in pet seneetis cases (see Ellenbogen v Mitreski, 212 AD3d 574, 575 [1* Dept 2023]; Cromwell v Lashley, 80 Misc 3d 593, 598- 599 [Civ Ct, New York County 2023]; Mitchell v Snider, 51 Misc 3d 1229[A] [Civ Ct, New York County 2016]).
In an affidavit, which is submitted herein, Defendantavers that for the past five years since she becamePlaintiff's roommate in 2019, she undertook extensive responsibility of Blu’s day-to-day care and companionship dueto Plaintiff's neglect and frequent prolonged absences.
Defendantfurther attests that over the courseof the last five years in which she has functioned as Blu’s primary caretaker and companion, they developed an extensive emotional bond, and that removing Blu from her custody now would be distressing for the animal.
* In addition, Defendant proffers an unsworn letter from her therapist, Sara Suman, LCSW,stating that Blu has become Defendant’s emotional support animal, helping relieve symptomsof a major depressive disorderand post-traumatic stress disorder.
In fact, the balance of the evidence producedby the parties on this motion appear to support the position that the “best interest of all concerned” would be better served by preserving the status quo rather than by remitting Blu to Plaintiffs possession.
cite Cite Document

DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION

Document Tiffany and Company et al v. LLOYD'S OF LONDON SYNDICATES 33, 510, 609, 780, 1084, 1225, 1414, 1686, 1861, 1969, 2001, 2012, 2232, 2488, 2987, 3000, 3623, 4444, 4472, and 4711, 65...
Plaintiff's underlying claims of replevin, larceny, unjust enrichment, fraud, and conversion arise out of a dispute over the possession and ownership of a pet animal.
The "cherished status" pets hold in society transforms the animal factors, interest of the Today, the "best of multiple the best into an analysis including inquiry proprietary (see Raymondv Lachmann, 264 AD2d340, 341 [1st Dept 1999]).3 concerned" for all cases (see Ellenbogen 80 Misc 3d 593, 598- is the standard ofreview in pet ownership analysis 212 AD3d574, 575 [1St Dept 2023]; Cromwell v Lashley, v Mitreski, 599 [Civ Ct, NewYork County 2023]; Mitchell NewYork County 2016]).
away for extended periods of time, and that Defendant has been Blu's primary day-to-day caretaker over the last five years in which they lived together.10 As noted above, a preliminary injunction will only be issued if plaintiff demonstrates, with convincing evidentiary support, a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable equities Housing, injury absent granting of and that a balancing of a preliminary injunction, (CPLR § 6301; Nobu Next Door, LLC v Fina Arts favors his or her position Inc., 4 NY3d 839, 840 [2005]).
In fact, the balance of the evidence produced by the parties on this motion appear to support concerned" would be better of all served by preserving the status quo rather than by the position that the "best interest remitting Blu to Plaintiff's possession.
of best the [considering v C.C.B., 2022 NYLJ LEXIS 1817 interests [Sup Ct, Kings County 2022] (custody of companion pets awarded based on evaluation of ¹° Plaintiff's Exhibit D - G(NYSCEFDocNos.
cite Cite Document

DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION

Document Tiffany and Company et al v. LLOYD'S OF LONDON SYNDICATES 33, 510, 609, 780, 1084, 1225, 1414, 1686, 1861, 1969, 2001, 2012, 2232, 2488, 2987, 3000, 3623, 4444, 4472, and 4711, 65...
The Order to Show Cause was signed November 13, 2023 with a return date of December 6, 2023.
The return date was administratively adjourned for three (3) months to March 6, 2024.
Both counsel for Defendant and I appeared before the Court on March 6 and the motion was marked fully submitted.
CPLR 2219(a) requires that an order determining a motion for a provisional remedy be made within twenty (20) days.
Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court issue an order at its earliest opportunity.
cite Cite Document

DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION

Document Tiffany and Company et al v. LLOYD'S OF LONDON SYNDICATES 33, 510, 609, 780, 1084, 1225, 1414, 1686, 1861, 1969, 2001, 2012, 2232, 2488, 2987, 3000, 3623, 4444, 4472, and 4711, 65...
The above captioned matter has been set down for a Preliminary Conference on March 21st, 2024 at 9:30 a.m., in the Preliminary Conference Part on the 8th floor (Office 812) of the Westchester County Courthouse.
***Email submissions will not be accepted*** When submitting your stipulation, please upload as Preliminary Conference Order (Proposed) If a completed stipulation has not been uploaded by 9am on March 20th, all parties will be required to appear.
FILED By Timothy Jackson Page 1 of 1
cite Cite Document

No. 08919101

Document COLUMBIA CASUALTY COMPANY VS. BP CORPORATION NORTH AMERICA INC. AS SUCCESSOR, CGC-17-560919, No. 08919101 (California State, San Francisco County, Superior Court F...

cite Cite Document

No. 65

Document Olden v. Jeffreys, 1:20-cv-07485, No. 65 (N.D.Ill. Nov. 21, 2023)

cite Cite Document

189

Document Tiffany and Company et al v. LLOYD'S OF LONDON SYNDICATES 33, 510, 609, 780, 1084, 1225, 1414, 1686, 1861, 1969, 2001, 2012, 2232, 2488, 2987, 3000, 3623, 4444, 4472, and 4711, 65...

cite Cite Document

No. 08795839

Document COLUMBIA CASUALTY COMPANY VS. BP CORPORATION NORTH AMERICA INC. AS SUCCESSOR, CGC-17-560919, No. 08795839 (California State, San Francisco County, Superior Court N...

cite Cite Document

No. 08790207

Document COLUMBIA CASUALTY COMPANY VS. BP CORPORATION NORTH AMERICA INC. AS SUCCESSOR, CGC-17-560919, No. 08790207 (California State, San Francisco County, Superior Court O...

cite Cite Document

No. 08767738

Document COLUMBIA CASUALTY COMPANY VS. BP CORPORATION NORTH AMERICA INC. AS SUCCESSOR, CGC-17-560919, No. 08767738 (California State, San Francisco County, Superior Court O...

cite Cite Document

No. 5824

Document Imerys Talc America, Inc., 1:19-bk-10289, No. 5824 (Bankr.D.Del. Oct. 2, 2023)

cite Cite Document

No. 08662137

Document COLUMBIA CASUALTY COMPANY VS. BP CORPORATION NORTH AMERICA INC. AS SUCCESSOR, CGC-17-560919, No. 08662137 (California State, San Francisco County, Superior Court Ju...

cite Cite Document

132

Document Tiffany and Company et al v. Lloyd's of London Syndicates 33, 609, 1084, 1414, 1686,1861,1969, 2001, 2007, 2012, 2232, 2488, 2987, 3000, 4020, 4472, 4711, and 5151, 651544/2023, 132 (N...

cite Cite Document

121

Document Tiffany and Company et al v. Lloyd's of London Syndicates 33, 609, 1084, 1414, 1686,1861,1969, 2001, 2007, 2012, 2232, 2488, 2987, 3000, 4020, 4472, 4711, and 5151, 651544/2023, 121 (N...

cite Cite Document
<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... >>