|
SQ v. JM, New York Law Journal, 7/12/13, p.1 (Supreme Ct, N.Y. County(Gesmer, J.)[matrimonial court followed arguments presented in motion submitted by Mr. Wendrovsky's client that "irrebuttable presumption of paternity created by Domestic Relations Law 73 does not apply" where "in vitro fertilization" used sperm of third-party, and alleged father(client) "did not execute the statutorily required consent form"; on the facts, the doctrine of "equitable estoppel" is also inapplicable]
Williams v. Esplanade Gardens Inc., 2012 NY Slip Op 32010(U) (Supreme Court, N.Y. County, 7/23/12)(Madden, J.)[motion for injunction against Mr. Wendrovsky's clients denied, as there was no likelihood that clients created a nuisance]
Matter of Caraballo, 13 Misc. 3d 1229A(Civ. Ct. N.Y. County, 2006)[Petition of the non-custodial spouse of Mr. Wendrovsky's client for npermission to change a minor’s surname denied]
Fliegman v. Rubin, 1 Misc. 3d 127A (A.T.2, 2003)[where Mr. Wendrovsky's clients sought damages for negligence, trespass and violation of Real Property & Proceedings Law(RPAPL) 861 (involving damages to several trees), motions by defendants for summary judgment dismissing the claims were denied, as the evidence established, respectively, that defendants entered onto plaintiffs' property; and that a trespass was not required to impose liability; damages may be recovered under the common law and the statute, if trees were cut down or despoiled, even without entry upon plaintiffs' property; Mr. Wendrovsky properly sought reargument, as the court addressed the merits of the claims]
Montalvo v. Reservoir Hacking Corp., 283 A.D.2d 281(1st Dept.,2001)[The Appellate Division affirmed an Order of the Supreme Court denying defendants’ motion to vacate an Order, post-inquest, directing entry of judgment in favor of Mr. Wendrovsky's clients]
Barocas v. F.W. Woolworth Co., 207 A.D. 2d 145(1st Dept.,1995)[on appeal, the record developed by Mr. Wendrovsky’s clients at their depositions and throughout their products liability litigation successfully demonstrated that as parents, they were not aware that their child’s toy was unsafe, or that child did not know how to use it; they did not place third parties at unreasonable risk, thereby immunizing the parents from liability and from a third-party action commenced by the defendant]
Matter of Miller, 632 N.Y.S. 2d 817(2nd Dept.,1995) [Motion by Mr. Wendrovsky's client granted to strike an attorney's reply brief, on an appeal by the executor-attorney-draftsman of a will, from an Order granting Mr. Wendrovsky's client's motion to vacate a Surrogate Court probate decree]
Keenan v. Harbor View Health & Beauty Spa, Inc., 205 A.D. 2d 589(2nd Dept., 1994)[Order of the Supreme court granting Mr. Wendrovsky's client's motion to obtain disclosure of the contents of any insurance agreements, and other documentation, that might lead to the discovery of admissible proof, affirmed on appeal];
|