Search for: "Brooks v Lewin"
Results 1 - 20
of 31
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Apr 2024, 3:51 am
” (Brooks v Lewin, 21 AD3d 731, 734 [1st Dept2005] [citation omitted], Iv denied 6 NY3d 713 [2006].) [read post]
27 Mar 2024, 4:57 am
To establish causation, a plaintiff must demonstrate that, but for the attorney’snegligence, she would have prevailed in the underlying matter, or would not have sustained any ascertainable damages ( Brooks v Lewin, 21 AD3d 731, 734 [ pt Dept 2005]). [read post]
24 Jan 2024, 4:36 am
The First Department has held that to establish prox.in1atc cause on a claim for legal malpractice, the “plaintiff must demonstrate that but for the attorney’s negligence, [they] would have prevailed in the underlying mailer or would not have sustained any ascertainable damages” (Brooks v, Lewin, 21AD3d 73 1, 734 [1st Dept 2005]). [read post]
20 Dec 2023, 6:32 am
In order to establish a legal malpractice claim, a plaintiff must establish “three elements: (1) that the attorney was negligent; (2) that such negligence was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s losses; and (3) proof of actual damages” (Brooks v Lewin, 21 AD3d 731, 734 [1st Dept 2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 713 [2006]). [read post]
18 Dec 2023, 3:25 am
This speculation is insufficient to establish that defendant’s malpractice, if any, was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s losses (see Brooks v Lewin, 21 AD3d 731, 734-735 [1st Dept 2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 713 [2006]). [read post]
18 Sep 2023, 4:41 am
“An attorney’s conduct or inaction is the proximate cause of a plaintiff’s damages if “but for” the attorney’s negligence “the plaintiff would have succeeded on the merits of the underlying action” (AmBase Corp. v Davis Polk & Wardwell, 8 NY3d 428, 434, 866 NE2d 1033, 834 NYS2d 705 [2007]), or would not have sustained “actual and ascertainable” damages (Dombrowski, 19 NY3d at 350; Brooks v… [read post]
16 Feb 2022, 4:59 am
There is no evidence in the record to support plaintiffs’ expert accountant’s assumption that if DFS had taken the same actions against plaintiffs nine months earlier, plaintiffs would have undertaken the same remedial measures nine months earlier (see Brooks v Lewin, 21 AD3d 731, 734-735 [1st Dept 2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 713 [2006]). [read post]
23 Aug 2021, 2:53 am
There is no evidence in the record to support plaintiffs’ expert accountant’s assumption that if DFS had taken the same actions against plaintiffs nine months earlier, plaintiffs would have undertaken the same remedial measures nine months earlier (see Brooks v Lewin, 21 AD3d 731, 734-735 [1st Dept 2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 713 [2006]). [read post]
17 Jul 2020, 6:08 am
Moreover, plaintiffs’ allegation that “had Moncho been able to utilize his preferred choice of plan funder, the Lightstone Group, none of the injuries incurred as the result of Miller and Sprei’s acts would have occurred” (NYSCEF Doc No. 149, second amended verified complaint, ¶ 169) is too speculative (see Brooks v Lewin, 21 AD3d 731, 734-735 [1st Dept 2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 713 [2006] [“speculation on future events is insufficient to… [read post]
16 Apr 2020, 5:26 am
(See e.g., Brooks v Lewin, 21 AD3d 731 [1st Dept 2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 713 [2006] [speculation on future events insufficient to establish causation in malpractice action]; John P. [read post]
11 Mar 2020, 4:20 am
“In this legal malpractice action, plaintiff failed to establish prima facie that, but for defendants’ alleged negligence in representing him in the underlying personal injury action, he would have prevailed in that action (see Brooks v Lewin, 21 AD3d 731, 734 [1st Dept 2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 713 [2006]). [read post]
13 Dec 2019, 4:22 am
“This action alleging legal malpractice was correctly dismissed because plaintiff could not show that, but for defendants’ negligence, he would have prevailed in the underlying action alleging false arrest, wrongful imprisonment, and the deprivation of rights under 42 USC § 1983 (see Brooks v Lewin, 21 AD3d 731, 734 [1st Dept 2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 713 [2006]). [read post]
25 Oct 2019, 4:41 am
Were we to reach those arguments, we would nevertheless find that plaintiff’s allegations supported an inference of proximate causation and the documentary evidence did not refute those allegations (CPLR 3211[a][1], [7]; Brooks v Lewin, 21 AD3d 731, 734 [1st Dept 2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 713 [2006]; cf. [read post]
5 Jul 2019, 3:03 am
Although his legal malpractice claims premised on defendants’ representation of him in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit arguably were timely and not barred by collateral estoppel, plaintiff failed to show that defendants’ alleged failures caused him to lose on that appeal (see Brooks v Lewin, 21 AD3d 731, 734 [1st Dept 2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 713 [2006]). [read post]
5 Jul 2019, 3:03 am
Although his legal malpractice claims premised on defendants’ representation of him in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit arguably were timely and not barred by collateral estoppel, plaintiff failed to show that defendants’ alleged failures caused him to lose on that appeal (see Brooks v Lewin, 21 AD3d 731, 734 [1st Dept 2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 713 [2006]). [read post]
24 May 2019, 4:36 am
However, “speculation on future events are insufficient to establish that the defendant lawyer’s malpractice, if any, was a proximate cause of any such loss” (Brooks v Lewin, 21 AD3d 731, 734-735 [1st Dept 2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 713 [2006] [citations omitted]). [read post]
22 Apr 2019, 4:47 am
(Brooks v Lewin, 21 AD3d 731, 734 [1st Dept 2005].) [read post]
8 Apr 2019, 4:21 am
Such speculation is insufficient to sustain a claim for legal malpractice (see Freeman v Brecher, 155 AD3d 453, 453 [1st Dept 2017]; Brooks v Lewin, 21 AD3d 731, 734-735 [1st Dept 2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 713 [2006]). [read post]
24 May 2018, 3:55 am
(Nomura Asset Capital Corp. v Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, 26 NY3d at 50; LaRusso v Katz, 30 AD3d 240, 243 [1st Dept 2006]; Brooks v Lewin, 21 AD3d 731, 734 [1st Dept 2005]; see Stackpole v Cohen, Ehrlich & Frankel, LLP, 82 AD3d 609, 610 [1st Dept 2011].) [read post]
6 Apr 2018, 4:43 am
These allegations state a cause of action for legal malpractice (see Brooks v Lewin, 21 AD3d 731, 734 [1st Dept 2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 713 [2006]). [read post]
