Search for: "Lavan v. State"
Results 1 - 20
of 25
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Apr 2023, 8:30 am
1 Lavanant v. [read post]
26 Jul 2021, 3:23 am
Hindsight arguments concerning selection of one of several reasonable courses of action do not state a viable cause of action for malpractice (Brookwood Cos., Inc. v Alston & Bird LLP, 146 AD3d 662, 667 [2017]). [read post]
17 Jul 2020, 6:08 am
Violations of disciplinary or ethical rules do not, by themselves, give rise to a cause of action (Sumo Container Sta. v Evans, Orr, Pacelli, Norton & Laffan, 278 AD2d 169, 170-171 [1st Dept 2000]; Lavanant v General Acc. [read post]
15 May 2020, 3:49 am
As anyone familiar with the actual law in Davis v. [read post]
10 Jul 2019, 4:11 am
Since damages in a legal malpractice case are designed “to make the injured client whole” (Campagnola v Mulholland, Minion & Roe, 76 NY2d 38, 42 [1990]), having failed to plead actual damages, plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim (see Heritage Partners, LLC v Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, 133 AD3d 428 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 904 [2016]; Lavanant v General Acc. [read post]
10 Jul 2019, 4:11 am
Since damages in a legal malpractice case are designed “to make the injured client whole” (Campagnola v Mulholland, Minion & Roe, 76 NY2d 38, 42 [1990]), having failed to plead actual damages, plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim (see Heritage Partners, LLC v Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, 133 AD3d 428 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 904 [2016]; Lavanant v General Acc. [read post]
4 Mar 2019, 4:10 am
(See Heritage Partners, LLC v Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, 133 AD3d 428, 429 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 904 [2016] [the “gross speculation of future events” in the plaintiffs’ allegations were insufficient to satisfy “but for” causation element required to state malpractice claim]). [read post]
3 Apr 2018, 4:21 am
See Heritage Partners, LLC v Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, 133 AD3d 428, 429 (1st Dept 2015) (affirming dismissal of malpractice claim based on “allegations ‘couched in terms of gross speculations on future events”‘), quoting Sherwood Group, Inc. v Dornbush, Mensch, Mandelstam & Silverman, 191 AD2d 292, 294 (1st Dept 1993 ); Leff v Fulbright & Jaworski, LLP, 78 AD3d 531, 533 (I st Dept 2010) (“[P]laintiff cannot… [read post]
26 Feb 2018, 7:54 pm
This includes mental anguish, mental injury, shock, fright or death resulting from bodily injury, sickness or disease.The insured argued that the district court had erred in granting summary judgment to the defendant insurer by failing to apply Lavanant v. [read post]
29 Jul 2013, 9:46 am
Further, the recent Court cases of United States v. [read post]
5 Sep 2012, 2:28 pm
(Orin Kerr) Today’s decision is Lavan v. [read post]
5 Sep 2012, 1:29 pm
But does that mean that the state is entitled to immediately crush your car or kill your dog? [read post]
29 Jan 2012, 3:07 pm
The case is cited as CRP/Extell Parcel I, L.P. v. [read post]
25 Jan 2012, 2:10 am
Were we able to predict the future, we would be betting on further proceedings after the decision in CRP/Extell Parcel I, L.P. v Cuomo; 2012 NY Slip Op 50073(U) ; Decided on January 19, 2012 Supreme Court, New York County; Singh, J. [read post]
29 Apr 2011, 7:43 am
Katz, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Los Angeles 6 $257,679,500 Consumer Protection State of Louisiana v. [read post]
13 Jan 2010, 10:03 am
Strickland, Esq., Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, 2029 Century Park East, Los Angeles, CA 90067. [read post]
8 Jan 2010, 5:27 am
See Microsoft v. [read post]
4 Nov 2009, 2:04 am
Estis, a founding partner at Rosenberg & Estis, and Jeffrey Turkel, a partner at the firm, write that with its Oct. 22, 2009 decision in Roberts v. [read post]
1 Jul 2009, 12:55 am
Keyes, special counsel at the firm, write: In Continental Casualty Co. v. [read post]
6 May 2009, 1:33 am
Estis, a founding partner at Rosenberg & Estis, and Jeffrey Turkel, a partner at the firm, review the recent First Department case of Hirsch v. [read post]
