Cases

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Brian LoRusso and Tina LoRusso appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Asher, J.), dated May 21, 2015, which, in effect, granted the plaintiff’s renewed motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale and denied their cross motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) to vacate their default in answering the complaint, pursuant t

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We reject the contention of the New York State Attorney-General that Supreme Court erred in determining that petitioner was entitled to a defense in a pending Federal action. Pursuant to Public Officers Law § 17 (2) (a), "the state shall provide for the defense of the employee in any civil action or proceeding in any state or federal court [including actions to enforce a provision of 42 USC § 1981 or §

Merrick, P.J. This is a summary process action to recover possession of premises owned by plaintiff Antonio LoRusso (“the Landlord”) and occupied by defendant Donna Talbot (the ‘Tenant”) as a tenant at will. Judgment was entered for the Landlord for both possession and three months’ rent in the amount of $1,750.001 The Tenant has appealed that judgment and the denial of her motion for a stay of execu

Wright v. LoRusso, 2026 NCBC 24. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION MECKLENBURG COUNTY 20CVS010612-590 JODY STANSELL, individually and as a member of LORUSSO VENTURES, LLC d/b/a CINCH.SKIRT, Plaintiff, v. KRISTA LORUSSO, individually and as a member-manager of LORUSSO FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS VENTURES, LLC d/b/a

Black, P.J. This is a civil action in contract brought by the plaintiff, Maine Drilling and Blasting, Inc., on February 19, 1985, against the defendant, Lorusso Corporation, for recovery of $24,369.40, representing labor and materials provided to the defendant pursuant to a written agreement. In its complaint, the plaintiff alleged that on June 25,1984, it entered into a written contract with the defendant to supply labor and mat

151 Conn. 189 (1963) STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. GENNARO LORUSSO Supreme Court of Connecticut. Argued October 4, 1963. Decided November 6, 1963. KING, C. J., MURPHY, SHEA, ALCORN and COMLEY, Js. *190 Charles Henchel, with whom was Morris W. Mendlesohn, for the appellant (defendant). George R. Tiernan,</

KEARSE, Circuit Judge: Joseph Errante and Vito LoRusso appeal from judgments entered after a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Thomas P. Griesa, Judge, convicting them of possession of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844 (1976), and of conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin,

*145Justice LaVECCHIA delivered the opinion of the Court. Defendant Zarik Rose was convicted, as an accomplice, of the purposeful murder of Charles Mosley. The State’s theory at trial was that defendant arranged for the murder while in jail and about to go to trial on earlier charges that he had attempted to murder the victim. In this appeal, we address

644 S.E.2d 196 (2007) LEE v. The STATE. No. A06A2484. Court of Appeals of Georgia. March 22, 2007. *197 Romin Vincent Alavi, Atlanta, for appellant. Patrick H. Head, District Attorney, Rose L. Wing, Amelia G. Pray, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee. PHIPPS, Judge. Arthur Lee III was tried by a jury a

626 S.E.2d 206 (2006) 277 Ga. App. 231 ROBERTSON v. The STATE. No. A05A1603. Court of Appeals of Georgia. January 17, 2006. *207 Roderick H. Martin, David J. Koontz, Marietta, for appellant. Patrick H. Head, District Attorney, Amelia G. Pray, Rose L. Wing, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.

925 A.2d 1235 (2007) 102 Conn.App. 453 STATE of Connecticut v. JOHN B.[1] No. 27305. Appellate Court of Connecticut. Argued February 5, 2007. Decided July 17, 2007. *1237 Christopher Y. Duby, special public defender, for the appellant (defendant). Kathryn Ward Bare, speci

114 P.3d 354 (2005) 137 N.M. 674 2005-NMCA-076 STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nathan VAUGHN, Defendant-Appellant. No. 24,630. Court of Appeals of New Mexico. April 13, 2005. Certiorari Denied June 6, 2005. *357 Patricia A. Madrid, Attorney General, Sant

556 S.E.2d 248 (2001) 252 Ga. App. 655 The STATE v. LENTSCH. No. A01A1444. Court of Appeals of Georgia. November 8, 2001. Reconsideration Denied November 30, 2001. *249 Barry E. Morgan, Solicitor-General, Keith S. Hasson, Assistant Solicitor-General, Browning & Tanksley, Lawrence J. Lo

Opinion of the Court by FOLEY, J. This case arises out of an incident that occurred on or about November 10, 2003, and resulted in an alleged wrongful death, at the Kalawahine Streamside Housing Development (Project). The Project is located in Honolulu on twenty-seven acres of land owned by DefendanVAppellee/Third Party Plaintiff/Cross-Appellee State of Hawai'i Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL). Plaint

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 868 We issued an opinion in this case on June 26, 2009. Today, we deny the motion for rehearing filed by respondent Central Expressway Sign Associates, withdraw our prior opinion, and substitute the following. The Texas Constitution provides that "[n]o person's property shall be taken, damaged or destroye

566 S.E.2d 320 (2002) 255 Ga. App. 729 FURCAL-PEGUERO v. The STATE. No. A02A0792. Court of Appeals of Georgia. May 21, 2002. Reconsideration Denied June 12, 2002. Certiorari Denied September 6, 2002. *321 Head, Thomas, Webb & Willis, William C. Head, Atlanta, for appel

12 S.W.3d 6 (1999) E.H. BRAINARD, II, Carolyn Rogers, Nancy Briscoe, Boone Pickens, Bea Pickens, Morrison Cattle Company, J.A. Whittenburg, III, Frances W. Klein, Jack F. Turner, Diane E. Bowes, and J.A. Whittenburg, IV, et al., Petitioners, v. The STATE of Texas and the General Land Office of the State of Texas, Respondents. No. 98-0578. Supreme Court of Texas. Argued February

23 Kan. App.2d 352 (1997) 931 P.2d 1258 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. JAMES DEWAYNE BURNS, Appellant. No. 73,714. Court of Appeals of Kansas. Opinion filed January 17, 1997. Michael J. Helvey, assistant appellate defender, and Jessica R. Kunen, chief appellate defender, for appellant. Julie McKenna, county attorney

17 Kan. App. 2d 167 (1992) 836 P.2d 11 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. MURYEL JOSENBERGER, Appellant. No. 66,429 Court of Appeals of Kansas. Opinion filed June 26, 1992. Lucille Marino, assistant appellate defender, and Jessica R. Kunen, chief appellate defender, for the appellant. Christopher L. Schneider, assistant

Hull, J. A jury found the defendant, David J. Weinberg, guilty of murder in violation of General Statutes § ñSaSáa.1 The trial court thereupon sentenced him to a term of life imprisonment.2 On appeal from this judgment the defendant claims that the trial court should not have: (1) denied his request for an evidentiary hearing on a motion to supp