Cases

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER SCULLIN, District Judge. I. Background Plaintiffs Timothy and Angela Witherbee purchased the residence at 1011 Whiting Road in Jordan, New York in December 1986 and moved into this home in January 1987. On January 22,1987, James Lloyd, a serviceman for defendant Suburban Propane, reactivated the propane services for the plaintiffs’ residence

Lahtinen, J. Appeal from two orders of the Family Court of Schenectady County (Taub, J.H.O.), entered August 15, 2012 and August 28, 2012, which, among other things, granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6, for custody of respondents’ children. Respondent Alfredo C. (hereinafter the father) and respon*1047de

Lahtinen, J. Appeal from two orders of the Family Court of Schenectady County (Taub, J.H.O.), entered August 15, 2012 and August 28, 2012, which, among other things, granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6, for custody of respondents’ children. Respondent Alfredo C. (hereinafter the father) and respon*1047de

OPINION OF THE COURT Per Curiam. At issue on this appeal is whether the voluntary payment doctrine bars recovery of alleged excessive late fees paid by the plaintiff to the defendant U-A Columbia Cablevision of Westchester, Inc., doing business as TCI Cable of Westchester (hereinafter the defendant). We agree with the Supreme Court that the doctrine precludes recovery and affirm the dismissal of the complaint i

689 F.Supp.2d 417 (2010) Shawn LEWIS, Plaintiff, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Police Officer Dean Anagnostos, and Sergeant John Marchello, Defendants. No. 06-CV-0516 (RER). United States District Court, E.D. New York. March 3, 2010. *420 Roberta D. Asher, Ryan Heath Asher, Asher & Associates, P.C., Leslie D. Kelmachter, The Jacob

293 F.Supp. 164 (1968) FIDELIS CORPORATION, Richard T. Lovelace, Bartlett Burnap, William S. Fryer and Hearsh Bros., a partnership, Plaintiffs, v. LITTON INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant. No. 67 Civ. 3662. United States District Court S. D. New York. September 24, 1968. *165 *166 Davis & Cox, N

112 F.Supp. 99 (1949) HORWITZ v. BALABAN et al. United States District Court S. D. New York. October 24, 1949. *100 William Rosenfeld, New York City, for plaintiff, Pomerantz, Levy, Schreiber & Haudek, New York City, of counsel. Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett, New York City, for defendants, Louis Connick and James P. Murtagh, New York

DIMOND, District Judge. The plaintiff has sued for cancellation of certain shares of the capital stock of defendant, Valley Plotel Corporation, alleged to have been fraudulently issued, and for other relief. The plaintiff alleges that at the time of the issuance of the stock, the plaintiff was the absolute owner of approximately 60%, and thus more than a majority, of the issued and outstanding shares of the capital stock of the

WATERMAN, Circuit Judge. This action involves a claim of trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq., together with claims of breach of contract and unfair competition. Jurisdiction rests upon 28 U.S.C. § 1338 and § 1332. 28 U.S.C. § 1338 grants to district courts original and exclusive jurisdiction over ci

McNaught, J. In the year 1886, in connection with the establishment of a municipally-owned water supply for the village of Canastota, the plaintiff acquired certain springs by conveyance from one Romain D. Button. The springs are located on what was known as the spring lot, and all flowed in a westerly or northwesterly direction to a point where they united to form a stream which flowed westerly through the premises of Bull, Cady

Crosby, J. This is an action upon a promissory note for $1,400, dated April 17, 1922, and payable to the order of “Witherbee Sherman Co.” Backus Foundry, Inc. is the maker. The note was indorsed by the defendant before delivery, and delivered by the payee to the plaintiff after maturity for collection. In the defendant’s answer several defences are pleaded, including payment, want of consideration, ultra vires and that t

125 F.2d 986 (1942) HOWARD et al. v. UNITED STATES et al. UNITED STATES et al. v. HOWARD et al. Nos. 10061, 10124. Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. February 6, 1942. Rehearing Denied April 6, 1942. *987 *988 *989 Esmond Phel

Bijur, J. Plaintiff sued for $470.33, the agreed rental for the months of January and February, 1918, under a lease to defendant of a loft in a building owned by the plaintiff in which it was provided that the lessee would not use any part thereof for any purpose ‘ ‘ more dangerous thereto than printing and lithographing. ’ ’ Defendant counterclaimed in the sum of $500 for damage arising out of the breach of the landlord