William Robert Larkin

William Robert Larkin's Legal Cases (5)

New York, NY

Litigation Lawyer at New York, NY

Practice Areas: Litigation, Insurance ... +3 more

Message View Profile
Message View Profile
Insurance

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Nalbandian, 89 A.D.3d 648 (2011), 931 N.Y.S.2d 698, 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 07785

N/A

OUTCOME: Won appeal. Case remanded and dismissed.

This was a de novo action arising out of a matter that started in arbitration. We argued that the lower court applied the wrong burden to the facts of the case. The Appellate Division agreed. After or ... al argument, the Appellate Division, Second Department reversed the lower court decision denying Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The matter was remanded to the Supreme Court which then applied the correct burden and granted Plaintiff’s motion finding that no no-fault benefits were owed to the Applicant/Defendant because the policy of insurance had been exhausted.

Construction and development

James P. Moore et al. v. Miguelina Fernandez, et al. Supreme Court, Bronx County, Index 25419/16

N/A

OUTCOME: Won motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff attached a mechanics lien on a multi-family residence owned by Defendant claiming entitlement to an equitable interest in the property pursuant to an arrangement between them. We filed a mot ... ion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211. The court granted the motion with respect to all but one cause of action for constructive trust and vacated the lien.

Insurance

Metropolitan Medical a/a/o Robinson Luc v. Allstate Insurance Company, Civil Court, Queens County, Index 34549/05

N/A

OUTCOME: Won motion.

Plaintiff entered a default judgment on August 10, 2007. The clerk of the court did not compound the interest. Plaintiff filed a motion in 2017 to recalculate the interest pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65.15( ... h)(1). Defendant opposed Plaintiff’s motion and cross moved to dismiss the action, or in the alternative, stay the interest pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-3.9(d). The court declined to dismiss the action but denied Plaintiff’s motion to amend the judgment.

Insurance

Seaside Rehab and Sports Medicine a/a/o Evelia Polanco v. Allstate Ins. Co., Civil Court, Queens County, Index 57122/03

N/A

OUTCOME: Won motion.

This matter was settled on August 2, 2007. Defendant failed to pay the settlement. Plaintiff entered judgment on June 21, 2016. The clerk of the court did not compound the interest. Plaintiff filed ... a motion in 2016 to recalculate the interest pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65.15(h)(1). Defendant opposed Plaintiff’s motion and cross moved to dismiss the action, or in the alternative, stay the interest pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-3.9(d). The court granted Plaintiff’s application to amend the judgment to include compounded interest pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65.15(h)(1) but also granted Defendant’s cross motion to stay the interest from August 2, 2007 until the date Plaintiff filed the motion to amend; August 23, 2016. The interest was stayed due to Plaintiff’s delay in entering judgment. The net result was that less money was owed than was at issue in the original judgment that Plaintiff sought to modify.

Insurance

Healthline 1 Inc. a/a/o Fredy Moreno-Alfaro v. Allstate Insurance Company, Civil Court, Queens County, Index 43104/01

N/A

OUTCOME: Won motion.

This matter was settled on May 7, 2011. Defendant failed to pay the settlement. Plaintiff entered judgment on June 28, 2016. The clerk of the court did not compound the interest. Plaintiff filed a ... motion in 2016 to recalculate the interest pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65.15(h)(1). Defendant opposed Plaintiff’s motion and cross moved to dismiss the action, or in the alternative, stay the interest pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-3.9(d). The court granted Plaintiff’s application to amend the judgment to include compounded interest pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65.15(h)(1) but also granted Defendant’s cross motion to stay the interest from May 7, 2011 until the date Plaintiff filed the motion to amend; August 30, 2016. The interest was stayed due to Plaintiff’s delay in entering judgment. The net result was that less money was owed than was at issue in the original judgment that Plaintiff sought to modify.

Ad

Transform legal challenges into solutions.

Connect now to review your situation.

The Avvo Rating explained

display-bg

The Avvo Rating explained

Avvo Rating

Our Rating is calculated using information the lawyer has included on their profile in addition to the information we collect from state bar associations and other organizations that license legal professionals. Attorneys who claim their profiles and provide Avvo with more information tend to have a higher rating than those who do not.

What determines Avvo Rating?
  • Experience & background Years licensed, work experience, education
  • Legal community recognition Peer endorsements, associations, awards
  • Legal thought leadership Publications, speaking engagements
  • Discipline Disciplinary information may not be comprehensive, or updated. We recommend that you always check a lawyer's disciplinary status with their respective state bar association before hiring them.
Avvo Rating Levels
Learn More About the Avvo Rating