DOCSLIB.ORG

CPLR Update Bridging the Gap | August 2018 New York State Bar Association Committee Continuing Legal Education ______

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CPLR Update Bridging the Gap | August 2018 New York State Bar Association Committee Continuing Legal Education ______ CPLR Update Bridging the Gap | August 2018 New York State Bar Association Committee Continuing Legal Education ____________________________________________________________________________ Speaker: David L. Ferstendig, Esq. Law Offices of David L. Ferstendig, LLC. New York City Date: Thursday, August 16, 2018 Time: 9:05 to 10:20 a.m. Where: Hotel Pennsylvania 401 7th Avenue New York, NY 10001 DAVID L. FERSTENDIG BIO David L. Ferstendig, currently a member of Law Offices of David L. Ferstendig, LLC, New York, was a founding officer of the law firm Breindel & Ferstendig, P.C. He litigates a spectrum of civil and commercial matters, including breach of contract, products liability, toxic tort, insurance and reinsurance coverage, jewelers’ block, political risk, environmental liability, trade secret, and professional indemnity. Mr. Ferstendig is also an adjunct law professor at Brooklyn Law School and New York Law School, where he teaches New York Practice. He is the General Editor of Weinstein, Korn & Miller New York Civil Practice: CPLR (LexisNexis), the premier 15-volume litigation treatise cited regularly as authoritative by New York State and Federal courts; author of Ferstendig, Chase New York CPLR Manual (LexisNexis) and LexisNexis AnswerGuide New York Civil Litigation; and General Editor of CPLR Practice Insights, published in New York Consolidated Laws Service (LexisNexis). He has written articles for the New York Law Journal, authored a law review article entitled: “A Practitioner’s Continued Uncertainty: Disclosure from Nonparties,” 74 ALB. L. REV. 731 (2010/2011) and was a panelist at New York University School of Law in March 2013 for the symposium entitled “The CPLR at Fifty: Its Past, Present, and Future” which resulted in the publication of his remarks, “The CPLR: A Practitioner’s Perspective.” Mr. Ferstendig has co-authored two law review articles with Professor Oscar Chase of NYU Law School entitled: Chief Judge Kaye: Improving the Pace and Integration of Litigation, 92 N.Y.U. L. REV. 11 (2017) and Should Counsel for a Non-Party Deponent be a “Potted Plant”?, 2014 N.Y.U. J. Legis. Pub. Pol’y Quorum 52. Mr. Ferstendig has provided expert testimony interpreting the meaning and application of New York law and has been quoted as an expert on legal procedure in New York in The Washington Post. He was a 2015 and 2011 recipient of New York Law School’s Otto L. Walter Distinguished Writing Award. A graduate of New York University School of Law, Mr. Ferstendig has lectured on civil practice issues for bar associations, the New York State Judicial Institute and LexisNexis. He is a member and past Chair of the CPLR Committee for the New York State Bar Association. Effective with the May, 2015 edition, Mr. Ferstendig became the Editor of the New York State Law Digest. He was selected by the New York State Board of Law Examiners as a faculty member presenting Civil Practice and Procedure to 2016 bar examination candidates as part of the New York law course. Portions of the text reprinted from the following permission: • Ferstendig, LexisNexis AnswerGuide New York Civil Litigation (2018 ed. Matthew Bender). Copyright 2016 Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. a LexisNexis company. All rights reserved. • LexisNexis® Expert Commentaries, David L. Ferstendig on Brill v. City of New York. Copyright 2007 Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. a LexisNexis company. All rights reserved. • Weinstein, Korn & Miller: New York Civil Practice: CPLR, Rel 162 – 169 (David L. Ferstendig ed., LexisNexis Matthew Bender 2d Ed.). Copyright 2018 Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. a LexisNexis company. All rights reserved. Table of Contents Table of 2018 CPLR Amendments ................................................................................................. 8 Table of 2017 CPLR Amendments ............................................................................................... 10 New Appellate Division Uniform Rules ....................................................................................... 11 New E-Filing Rules Applicable to Appellate Division................................................................. 11 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................... 12 CPLR 201.................................................................................................................................. 12 CPLR 202 - Borrowing Statute ................................................................................................. 14 Relation Back ............................................................................................................................ 20 CPLR 204 Stay ......................................................................................................................... 25 CPLR 205(a) - Six Month Extension ........................................................................................ 26 CPLR 207- Absence Toll .......................................................................................................... 30 CPLR 208 - Disability toll ........................................................................................................ 30 CPLR 212- Ten year statute of limitations ............................................................................... 31 CPLR 213 – Six-year statute of limitations .............................................................................. 32 CPLR 213-a - Residential rent overcharge ............................................................................... 43 CPLR 214 - Three year statute of limitations ........................................................................... 44 CPLR 214-a - Medical, dental or podiatric malpractice actions – two years and six months .. 52 CPLR 214-c- Discovery statute of limitations .......................................................................... 61 CPLR 214-c - Statute runs from date condition or symptom is discovered or reasonably should have been discovered, not the discovery of the specific cause of the condition or symptom .. 62 CPLR 215 - One year statute of limitations .............................................................................. 63 CPLR 217- Four month statute of limitations, “[u]nless a shorter time is provided in the law authorizing the proceeding” ...................................................................................................... 63 CPLR 217 - Article 78 proceeding appropriate where challenge is directed to the procedure followed in enacting, rather than the substance of, legislation ................................................. 69 CPLR 217 - 30-day statute of limitations applies ..................................................................... 70 CPLR 217 - Challenge to university's academic and administrative decision ......................... 70 CPLR 217 - No toll for plaintiff's invocation of defendant's voluntary student grievance procedure................................................................................................................................... 70 CPLR 217 - Gravamen of petition was that grading system was implemented in violation of lawful procedure, affected by an error of law, and arbitrary and capricious. ........................... 71 CPLR 217-a - One year and 90 days ........................................................................................ 72 JURISDICTION ........................................................................................................................... 77 Copyright © 2018 David L. Ferstendig, All Rights Reserved, Permission Required from Author for electronic or hard copy distribution. CPLR 301.................................................................................................................................. 77 CPLR 302 - Specific Jurisdiction ............................................................................................. 85 COMMENCEMENT .................................................................................................................... 94 CPLR 304 - Commencing actions or special proceedings ........................................................ 95 SUMMONS .................................................................................................................................. 96 CPLR 305 - Summons .............................................................................................................. 96 SERVICE ...................................................................................................................................... 97 CPLR 306-b - Service of initiating pleadings ........................................................................... 97 CPLR 308 - Personal service on natural persons .................................................................... 103 CPLR 311 - Personal service on corporation or governmental subdivision ........................... 114 CPLR 312-a - Service by mail ................................................................................................ 115 DEFENDANT’S APPEARANCE .............................................................................................. 115 CPLR 320 - Defendant’s appearance ...................................................................................... 115 CPLR 321- Attorneys ............................................................................................................. 117 REMOVAL ................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Compulsory Counterclaim Committee
    Report of Boyd-Graves Conference Compulsory Counterclaim Committee Members of the Committee to Study a Proposal to Adopt a Compulsory Counterclaim Rule are Stuart Raphael, Ham Bryson, Bob Mitchell, David Anthony, Jack Costello, Kent Sinclair, Lisa O’Donnell, Bill Mims, and Robin Wood, Chairman. The Committee has met thrice by conference call: on March 25, 2008, April 30, 2008, and May 22, 2008. In the initial conference the Chairman polled members of the Committee to determine if there was a consensus among members of the Committee in favor of a compulsory counterclaim. Seven members of the Committee said they were in favor of a compulsory counterclaim, and two members of the Committee expressed reservations about a compulsory counterclaim rule. In response to an inquiry about a compulsory counterclaim rule in other states, Kent thought that over 40 states had adopted a compulsory counterclaim rule. The Chairman asked members to state their reasons for their position. Those members who were in favor of the rule felt that it was good public policy for all claims arising out of the same transaction or occurrence to be joined in one action. A compulsory counterclaim rule promotes judicial economy and efficiency. Under Rule 1:6, the plaintiff is required to join all claims that arise out of an identified conduct, transaction or occurrence, or later be barred from bringing a second or subsequent action against the same opposing party (parties) arising out the same conduct, transaction or occurrence. The adoption of a compulsory counterclaim rule would require the opposing party to state a claim arising out of the conduct identified in the complaint, crossclaim, or third party claim.
    [Show full text]
  • The Shadow Rules of Joinder
    Brooklyn Law School BrooklynWorks Faculty Scholarship 2012 The hS adow Rules of Joinder Robin Effron Brooklyn Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/faculty Part of the Other Law Commons Recommended Citation 100 Geo. L. J. 759 (2011-2012) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of BrooklynWorks. The Shadow Rules of Joinder ROBIN J. EFFRON* The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide litigants with procedural devices for joining claims and parties. Several of these rules demand that the claims or parties share a baseline of commonality, either in the form of the same "transactionor occurrence" or a "common question of law or fact." Both phrases have proved to be notoriously tricky in application.Commentators from the academy and the judiciary have attributed these difficulties to the context- specific and discretionary nature of the rules. This Article challenges that wisdom by suggesting that the doctrinal confu- sion can be attributed to deeper theoretical divisions in the judiciary, particu- larly with regardto the role of the ontological categories of "fact" and "law." These theoretical divisions have led lower courtjudges to craft shadow rules of joinder "Redescription" is the rule by which judges utilize a perceived law-fact distinction to characterizea set of facts as falling inside or outside a definition of commonality. "Impliedpredominance" is the rule in which judges have taken the Rule 23(b)(3) class action standard that common questions predominate over individual issues and applied it to other rules of joinder that do not have this express requirement.
    [Show full text]
  • U:\Judgehovland\Law Clerks\Civil\Motions to Dismiss\Wilkinson V. Sbtwpd.Wpd
    Case 4:08-cv-00087-DLH-CSM Document 118 Filed 05/25/10 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA NORTHWESTERN DIVISION Peak North Dakota, LLC, a Colorado ) limited liability company; Peak Energy ) Resources, LLC, a Delaware limited ) liability company, Jack Vaughn, Alex ) McLean, and Matt Gray, ) ORDER ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:08-cv-087 ) Wilbur Wilkinson, Standing Bear ) Traders, LLC, a North Dakota limited ) liability company, and the Three Affiliated ) Tribes, Fort Berthold District Court, ) ) Defendants. ) _________________________________________________________________________ ) Wilbur Wilkinson, ) ) Third-Party Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Standing Bear Traders, LLC, ) a North Dakota limited liability company, ) and Margarita Burciaga-Taylor and ) Richard Howell, individually and ) d/b/a Standing Bear Traders, LLC, ) ) Third-Party Defendants. ) Before the Court is Standing Bear Traders, LLC (SBT) and Margarita Burciaga-Taylor’s (Taylor) “Motion to Dismiss Wilkinson’s Third Party Complaint or, Alternatively, to Abstain from Exercising Jurisdiction Over Wilkinson’s Third Party Complaint” filed on January 15, 2010. See Docket No. 83. Third-Party Plaintiff Wilbur Wilkinson (Wilkinson) filed a response in opposition 1 Case 4:08-cv-00087-DLH-CSM Document 118 Filed 05/25/10 Page 2 of 12 to the motion on March 10, 2010. See Docket No. 106. Taylor and SBT filed a reply brief on March 24, 2010. See Docket No. 108. Taylor and SBT filed a supplemental appendix on March 26, 2010. See Docket No. 111. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part. I. BACKGROUND Peak North Dakota, LLC (Peak North) is a limited liability company organized under Colorado law and authorized to do business as a foreign limited liability company in North Dakota.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 9: Neighborhood Character
    Chapter 9: Neighborhood Character A. INTRODUCTION As defined by the City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual, neighborhood character is considered to be a combination of the many elements that creates each neighborhood’s distinct personality. These elements include land use, urban design, visual resources, historic resources, socioeconomics, traffic, and noise, as well as the other physical or social characteristics that help to describe the community. According to the CEQR Technical Manual, an assessment of neighborhood character is generally needed when the action would exceed preliminary thresholds in any one of the following areas of technical analysis: land use, urban design and visual resources, historic resources, socioeconomic conditions, transportation, or noise. An assessment is also appropriate when the action would have moderate effects on several of the aforementioned areas. Potential effects on neighborhood character may include: • Land Use. Development resulting from a proposed action could alter neighborhood character if it introduced new land uses, conflicts with land use policy or other public plans for the area, changes land use character, or generates significant land use impacts. • Socioeconomic Conditions. Changes in socioeconomic conditions have the potential to affect neighborhood character when they result in substantial direct or indirect displacement or addition of population, employment, or businesses; or substantial differences in population or employment density. • Historic Resources. When an action would result in substantial direct changes to a historic resource or substantial changes to public views of a resource, or when a historic resource analysis identified a significant impact in this category, there is a potential to affect neighborhood character. • Urban Design and Visual Resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Uniform Trial Court Rules
    UNIFORM TRIAL COURT RULES Including Amendments Effective August 1, 2016 (Including Out-of-Cycle Amendments to UTCR 5.100, UTCR Chapter 21 Title, UTCR 21.040, 21.060, 21.070, and 21.100) This document has no copyright and may be reproduced. In the Matter of the Adoption of ) CHIEF JUSTICE ORDER Amendments to the Uniform Trial ) No. 16-019 Court Rules ) ) ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE ) UNIFORM TRIAL COURT RULES I HEREBY ORDER, pursuant to ORS 1.002, UTCR 1.030, and UTCR 1.050, the following: 1. The Uniform Trial Court Rules, as amended below, are adopted and are effective August 1, 2016, pursuant to ORS 1.002. 2. All current local rules inconsistent with the Uniform Trial Court Rules as amended will be deemed ineffective on August 1, 2016, pursuant to UTCR 1.030. 3. Local rules that are consistent with the Uniform Trial Court Rules as amended remain in effect and are subject to review as provided under UTCR 1.050. 4. Those local rules that are not amended or repealed and are not disapproved on review under UTCR 1.050 remain in effect until so amended, repealed, or disapproved. Dated this \ 1<lb day of May, 2016. Thomas A. Balmer " Chief Justice IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of the Adoption of ) SUPREME COURT ORDER Amendments to Uniform Trial Court ) No. 16-018 Rule 19.020 ) ) ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO ) UNIFORM TRIAL COURT RULE 19.020 Pursuant to ORS 33.145, the Oregon Supreme Court has approved amendment of Uniform Trial Court Rule (UTCR) 19.020, therefore I HEREBY ORDER the following: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Conflict of Laws: Florida 1968-69
    University of Miami Law Review Volume 24 Number 3 Article 2 5-1-1970 Conflict of Laws: Florida 1968-69 S. A. Bayitch Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr Recommended Citation S. A. Bayitch, Conflict of Laws: Florida 1968-69, 24 U. Miami L. Rev. 433 (1970) Available at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol24/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Miami Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. university of miami law review VOLUME 24 SPRING 1970 NUMBER 3 CONFLICT OF LAWS: FLORIDA 1968-69 S.A. BAYITCH* I. GENERAL PROBLEM S ...................................................... 434 II. JURISDICTIONAL CONFLICTS ................................................ 438 A. Long-Arm Statutes .................................................. 442 1. NONRESIDENT MOTORISTS .......................................... 443 2. NONRESIDENT AIRCRAFT AND WATERCRAFT OPERATORS .................... 444 3. BUSINESS BY NONRESIDENTS ....................................... 444 4. UNAUTHORIZED FOREIGN INSURERS .................................... 455 5. NONRESIDENT CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS AND SOLICITORS .............. 456 6. NONRESIDENT PARTNERSHIPS ....................................... 456 7. FOREIGN LAND DEVELOPERS .......................................
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT of FLORIDA CASE NO.: 1:19-Cv-23650-GAYLES/OTAZO-REYES MARIA ELENA PEREZ, Plaintif
    Case 1:19-cv-23650-DPG Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2020 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 1:19-cv-23650-GAYLES/OTAZO-REYES MARIA ELENA PEREZ, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. _______________________________________/ MIDLAND NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Counter and Third-Party Plaintiff, v. MARIA ELENA PEREZ (I), Counter-Defendant and Cross-Claimant, and MARIA ELENA PEREZ (II), Third-Party Defendant and Cross-Defendant on Crossclaim of Maria Elena Perez (I). _______________________________________/ ORDER THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Third-Party Defendant and Cross-Defendant Maria Elena Perez’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant and Cross-Claimant’s Amended Cross Claim for Failure to State a Cause of Action Upon Which Relief Can be Granted Case 1:19-cv-23650-DPG Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2020 Page 2 of 8 (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 57]. The Court has reviewed the Motion and the record and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons that follow, the Motion is granted. BACKGROUND1 This action stems from an ongoing family dispute over the proceeds of two life insurance policies purchased from Midland National Life Insurance Company (“Midland”) that insured the life of the decedent, Rolando A. Perez (the “Decedent”). Maria Elena Perez (“Perez I”), the Decedent’s widow, and Maria Elena Perez (“Perez II”), the Decedent and Perez I’s daughter, each claim to be the true beneficiary of the two life insurance policies. I. Factual Background On November 21, 1999, Midland issued a life insurance policy insuring the Decedent’s life for $97,000.00 (No.
    [Show full text]
  • American Conflicts Law
    Copyright © 2018 Carolina Academic Press, LLC. All rights reserved. American Conflicts Law: Cases and Materials Sixth Edition 2018-2019 Supplement By ROBERT L. FELIX James P. Mozingo III Professor Emeritus of Law University of South Carolina RALPH U. WHITTEN Senator Allen A. Sekt Professor Emeritus of Law Creighton University RICHARD H. SEAMON Professor of Law University of Idaho JESSE M. CROSS Assistant Professor of Law University of South Carolina CAROLINA ACADEMIC PRESS Copyright © 2018 Carolina Academic Press, LLC. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT © 2018 CAROLINA ACADEMIC PRESS, LLC ALL RIGHTS RESERVED CAROLINA ACADEMIC PRESS 700 KENT STREET DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27701 TELEPHONE (919) 489-7486 FAX (919) 493-5668 E-MAIL: [email protected] WWW.CAP-PRESS.COM Copyright © 2018 Carolina Academic Press, LLC. All rights reserved. PREFACE _____________________________________________________________________________ This Supplement is intended to update teachers and students on the latest cases and literature pertinent to the course in Conflict of Laws. Since the publication of the Sixth Edition of the casebook in 2015, there have been no major developments in the general area of choice of law that would constitute a fundamental alteration in the direction of the AConflicts Revolution@ that constitutes the main subject matter of the casebook. However, the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015), holding that the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses prohibit a state from refusing to allow same-sex marriages under its own law, will affect DOMA and full faith and credit issues discussed in Chapter 7 of the casebook.
    [Show full text]
  • Conflict of Laws
    University of Miami Law Review Volume 22 Number 3 Article 2 5-1-1968 Conflict of Laws S. A. Bayitch Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr Recommended Citation S. A. Bayitch, Conflict of Laws, 22 U. Miami L. Rev. 509 (1968) Available at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol22/iss3/2 This Leading Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Miami Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CONFLICT OF LAWS S. A. BAYITCH* I. GENERAL PROBLEM S ....................................................... 510 II. JURISDICTIONAL CONFLICTS ................................................ 513 A. Acting within Jurisdiction ............................................ 514 1. NONRESIDENT MOTORISTS ........................................... 516 2. NONRESIDENT WATERCRAFT OPERATORS ................................ 517 3. BUSINESS BY NONRESIDENTS ........................................ 517 4. UNAUTHORIZED FOREIGN INSURERS .................................. 527 5. NONRESIDENT CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS AND SOLICITORS .............. 528 6. NONRESIDENT PARTNERSHIPS ........................................ 528 7. FOREIGN LAND DEVELOPERS .......................................... 528 B. Jurisdiction in R em .................................................. 529 C. Forum Non
    [Show full text]
  • Choice-Of-Law Rules in Bankruptcy: an Opportunity for Congress to Resolve Conflicting Approaches
    SEVENTH CIRCUIT REVIEW Volume 5, Issue 2 Spring 2010 CHOICE-OF-LAW RULES IN BANKRUPTCY: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CONGRESS TO RESOLVE CONFLICTING APPROACHES ∗ VIKTORIA A. D. ZIEBARTH Cite as: Viktoria A. D. Ziebarth, Choice-of-Law Rules in Bankruptcy: An Opportunity for Congress to Resolve Conflicting Approaches, 5 SEVENTH CIRCUIT REV. 309 (2010), at http://www.kentlaw.edu/7cr/v5-2/ziebarth.pdf. INTRODUCTION When a dispute arises and the parties are from different states or more than one law within a single jurisdiction applies to the dispute, which law should govern? Choice-of-law rules answer that question. In the early years following the founding of the United States, state law was fairly uniform, so it usually did not matter which state’s law was applied.1 However, in subsequent years, states enacted statutes that conflicted with those of their sister states.2 Choice-of-law “is a device for choosing among states’ substantive laws.”3 Writing in 1927, Justice Benjamin Cardozo called conflict of ∗ J.D. candidate, May 2010, Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute of Technology; B.A., International Studies, 1997, Rhodes College. 1 Robert H. Jackson, Full Faith and Credit—The Lawyer’s Clause of the Constitution, 45 COLUM. L. REV. 1, 11 (1945). Justice Jackson’s article, which was given as the fourth annual Benjamin N. Cardozo Lecture on December 7, 1944, provides excellent insight into the origins of the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the Supreme Court’s full faith and credit jurisprudence through the early 1940s. 2 Id. 3 Scott Fruehwald, Choice of Law in Federal Courts: A Reevaluation, 37 BRANDEIS L.J.
    [Show full text]
  • When It Is Concerning Matters of Law… Go First to the Specific Then to the General
    To all who might be interested: New Rules for the J.P. Courts have been adopted by the Supreme Court of Texas, effective August 31, 2013. When It Is Concerning Matters Of Law… Go First To The Specific Then To The General So, On Eviction Cases, Go First To 510 Series of Rules Then to the 500 thru 507 Series of Rules. (If there is a conflict … the 510 Series overrides any other) The 508 and 509 Series of Rules DO NOT Apply to Eviction Cases On Cases to Enforce Landlord's Duty to Repair or Remedy Residential Rental Property Go First to the 509 Series of Rules Then to the 500 thru 507 Series of Rules (If there is a conflict … the 509 Series overrides any other) The 508 and 510 Series of Rules DO NOT Apply to Cases to Enforce a Landlord's Duty On Debt Claim Cases, Go First to the 508 Series of Rules Then to the Rules 500 thru 507 (If there is a conflict … the 508 Series Overrides any others) The 509 and 510 Series of Rules DO NOT Apply to Debt Claim Cases On Small Claims Cases, Only the 500 thru 507 Series of Rules apply 1 PART V. OF THE TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE … RULES OF PRACTICE IN JUSTICE COURTS TABLE OF CONTENTS: Page # IN GENERAL: (THE 500 SERIES) 500.1 CONSTRUCTION OF RULES ………………………………………………………….……………………….. 4 500.2 DEFINITIONS ……………………………………………………………………………….……………………….. 4 500.3 APPLICATION OF RULES IN JUSTICE COURT CASES ………….……….…………………………… 6 500.4 REPRESENTATION IN JUSTICE COURT CASES………………….………….………………………….. 6 500.5 COMPUTATION OF TIME; TIMELY FILING……………………………………………………………….
    [Show full text]
  • 82 SECOND AVENUE 1,150 SF Availble for Lease Between East 4Th and 5Th Streets EAST VILLAGE NEW YORK | NY
    RETAIL SPACE 82 SECOND AVENUE 1,150 SF Availble for Lease Between East 4th and 5th Streets EAST VILLAGE NEW YORK | NY SPACE A SPACE B SPACE DETAILS GROUND FLOOR LOWER LEVEL LOCATION NEIGHBORS Between East 4th and 5th Streets Nomad, Atlas Café, Frank, The Mermaid Inn, Coopers Craft & SIZE Kitchen, Bank Ant, The Bean Space A COMMENTS EXISTING Ground Floor 700 SF Prime East Village restaurant WALK-IN Basement 300 SF opportunity SPACE A REFRIGERATOR 300 SF Space B Vented for cooking use; gas and electric in place Ground Floor 450 SF KITCHEN New direct long-term lease, Basement 200 SF no key money FRONTAGE Space A Second Avenue 12 FT Space B Second Avenue 10 FT SPACE A TRANSPORTATION 700 SF 2019 Ridership Report Second Avenue Astor Place 6 RESTAURANT Annual 5,583,944 Annual 5,502,925 Weekday 16,703 Weekday 17,180 Weekend 24,564 Weekend 21,108 12 FT SECOND AVENUE EAST 14TH STREET EAST 14TH STREET EAST 14TH STREET EAST 14TH STREET WEST 14TH STREET EAST 14TH STREET Optyx Artichokes Pizza Petopia Akina Sushi Muzarella Pizza Bright Horizons Brothers Candy & Grocery M&J Nature Joe’s Pizza Krust Lex AMALGAMATED Vanessa’s Regina The City Synergy AVENUE SECOND Taverna Kyclades Republic Dumplings AVENUE FIRST Exchange AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS AVENUE Champion BANK Pizza Check Nugget Gourmet Big Arc Chicken AVENUE C AVENUE AVENUE A AVENUE Wine & City Le Café Coee B AVENUE Pizza First Lamb King’s Way Cashing Spot Baohaus Tortuga Vinny Vicenz Jewelry Spirits AVENUE THIRD Planet Rose FIFTH AVENUE Streets Cava Grill Revolution Shabu Food Corp Discount PJ’s Grocery
    [Show full text]