Search for: "Zornes v. Zornes"
Results 1 - 20
of 26
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Jan 2024, 7:25 pm
Rescheduling Recommendation, 2024 FDA’s 2023 analysis and recommendation finally came to light when Texas attorney Matt Zorn posted it on his website a week ago. [read post]
31 Oct 2022, 4:58 am
“An action to recover damages arising from legal malpractice must be commenced within three years after accrual” (Zorn v Gilbert, 8 NY3d 933, 933-934 [2007] [citation omitted]; see CPLR 214 [6]). [read post]
19 Mar 2021, 3:15 am
“The continuous representation doctrine tolls the statute of limitations where there is a mutual understanding of the need for further representation on the specific subject matter underlying the malpractice claim” (Zorn v Gilbert, 8 NY3d at 934 [internal quotation marks, ellipsis and citations omitted]). [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 4:40 am
However, legal malpractice claims which would otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations are timely if the doctrine of continuous representation applies (see Glamm v Allen, 57 NY2d 87, 91-94 [1982]; Alizio v Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C., 126 AD3d 733, 735 [2015]; Farage v Ehrenberg, 124 AD3d at 164), in which case the three-year statute of limitations is tolled for the period following the alleged malpractice “until the attorney’s continuing… [read post]
1 May 2019, 4:31 am
The “continuous representation doctrine tolls the statute of limitations … where there is a mutual understanding of the need for further representation on the specific subject matter underlying the malpractice claim” (Zorn v Gilbert, 8 NY3d 933, 934 [2007], quoting McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 306 [2002]; see also Shumsky v Eisenstein, 96 NY2d 164, 167-168 [2001J). [read post]
4 Oct 2018, 4:39 am
However, legal malpractice claims which would otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations are timely if the doctrine of continuous representation applies (see Glamm v Allen, 57 NY2d 87, 91-94; Alizio v Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C., 126 AD3d 733, 735; Farage v Ehrenberg, 124 AD3d at 164), in which case the three-year statute of limitations is tolled for the period following the alleged malpractice “until the attorney’s continuing representation… [read post]
3 Aug 2018, 5:17 am
In Malandrucco v. [read post]
11 Dec 2017, 4:26 am
“The continuousrepresentation doctrine tolls a statute of limitations where there is a mutual understa~ding of the need for further representation on the specific subject matter underlying the malpractice claim” (Zorn v Gilbert, 8 NY3d 933, 934 [2007] [internal quotations and citations omitted]). [read post]
31 Jan 2014, 11:40 pm
By Nicole KilloranState v. [read post]
3 Sep 2012, 2:47 pm
Supreme Court’s mandate in Brown v. [read post]
22 May 2012, 3:27 am
Levine & Associates, pc. 80 AD3d 573 , 574 see generally, Zorn v. [read post]
9 Feb 2012, 3:00 am
Zorn, 943 A.2d 573, 580 (Me.2008) (looking only to whether the foreign jurisdiction could have established personal jurisdiction under Maine law); Sung Hwan Co. v. [read post]
17 Aug 2011, 2:48 am
Zorn v. [read post]
6 Apr 2011, 8:02 am
FEC, and Snyder v. [read post]
5 Apr 2011, 1:00 am
In [*2]response, the plaintiff failed to present evidence establishing either that she commenced the action within the applicable three-year limitations period, or that the continuous representation toll applied in this case, since all of the documentary evidence in the record supports the conclusion that the legal representation had ended more than three years before this action was commenced, and there was no mutual understanding of a need for ongoing legal representation in the underlying matter… [read post]
28 Feb 2011, 3:04 pm
By Daniel RichardsonZorn v. [read post]
13 Oct 2010, 7:13 am
Peppers and Christopher Zorn respond to a recent New York Times editorial on Supreme Court law clerk hiring, in the National Law Journal. [read post]
14 Jun 2010, 2:39 am
Accordingly, the legal malpractice claims should not have been dismissed since Levinson failed to establish that they were time-barred (see Zorn v Gilbert, 8 NY3d 933, 934; 730 J & J, LLC v Polizzotto & Polizzotto, Esqs., 69 AD3d 704; Town of Wallkill v Rosenstein, 40 AD3d 972, 974). [read post]
2 Apr 2009, 3:56 pm
…and you’ll get something like today’s opinion in Commonwealth v. [read post]
20 Mar 2008, 3:08 am
"The cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice accrued when the defendant allegedly failed to advise the plaintiff of her equitable distribution rights and failed to disclose a conflict of interest (see Venturella-Ferretti v Kinzler, 306 AD2d 465, 466; see also Zorn v Gilbert, 8 NY3d 933, 934; McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 305). [read post]
