Legal Opinion
Orendick v. Chiodo
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided May 10, 2000PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
—Order unanimously reversed on the law and facts without costs, motion granted in part and judgment ordered in accordance with the following Memorandum: Plaintiffs, Marianne Orendick and Michael Orendick, each had a personal injury action pending in Supreme Court, in which the other asserted a derivative cause of action. They were represented by the Law Firm of Paul William Beltz, P. C.; Paul Beltz had declined an offer of $100,000 in Marianne’s case. The cases were scheduled for trial, with Michael’s case to be tried first and Marianne’s case to be tried immediately following. On the eve of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Campagnola v. MulhollandNew York Court of Appeals · 1990
- Cohen v. Grainger, Tesoriero & BellNew York Court of Appeals · 1993
- Teichner v. W & J Holsteins, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1985
- De Luccia v. Village of MonroeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
3Cited by6 opinions
- Coccia v. LiottiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Doviak v. Finkelstein & Partners, LLPAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Callaghan v. CallaghanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- Bode & Grenier, L.L.P. v. KnightDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2011
- Papadopoulos v. Goldstein, Goldstein & Rikon, P. C.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.