Search for: "Leder v Spiegel"
Results 21 - 31
of 31
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Dec 2007, 3:59 am
(see e.g., Leder v Spiegel, 9 NY3d 836; Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438; AmBase Corp. v Davis Polk & Wardwell, 8 NY3d 428; Davis v Klein, 88 NY2d 1008; Carmel v Lunney, 70 NY2d 169). [read post]
3 Apr 2018, 4:21 am
See Leder v Spiegel, 31 AD3d 266, 268 (I st Dept 2006) (“The failure to demonstrate proximate cause mandates the dismissal of a legal malpractice action regardless of whether the attorney was negligent. [read post]
1 Feb 2021, 5:47 am
” (Leder v Spiegel, 9 NY3d 836, 837 [2007] [internal citations omitted].) [read post]
30 May 2012, 3:28 am
Spiegel v. [read post]
27 Mar 2024, 4:57 am
Corp. v McManus & Richter, _ AD3d _, 2024 NY Slip Op 00799, * 5 [1 st Dept 2024]). [read post]
25 Apr 2012, 3:25 am
In Leder v Spiegel(31 AD3d 246,267 [ 1” Dept 2006 the Appellate Division, First Department, noted that “[in order to state a cause of action for legal malpractice, the complaint must set forth three elements: the negligence of the attorney; that the negligence was the proximate cause of the loss sustained; and actual damages. [read post]
26 Dec 2018, 4:31 am
To state a cause of action for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must plead “the negligence of the attorney; that the negligence was the proximate cause of the loss sustained; and actual damages” (Leder v Spiegel, 31 AD3d 266, 267 [1st Dept 2006], a.ffd 9 NY3d 836 [2007], cert denied, 552 US 1257 [2008] [citations omitted]). [read post]
5 Aug 2011, 2:11 am
To prevail on a cause of action for legal malpractice, plaintiff must satisfy three elements: (1) the negligence of the attorney; (2) that the negligence was the proximate cause of the loss sustained; and (3) actual damages (Leder v Spiegel, 31 AD3d 266, 267-268, 819 N.Y.S.2d 26 [1st Dept 2006]). [read post]
28 Nov 2017, 3:50 am
See Leder v Spiegel, 31 AD3d 266, 268 (I st Dept 2006) (“The failure to demonstrate proximate cause mandates the dismissal of a legal malpractice action regardles~ of whether the attorney was negligent. [read post]
24 May 2019, 4:36 am
Spiegel v Rowland, 552 US 1257 [2008] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). [read post]
18 Jan 2012, 2:49 am
Finally, construing the pleading in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as is required on consideration of [*4]a CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss, we find that it asserts actions and omissions by defendants that support viable claims for recovery (see Leder v Spiegel, 31 AD3d 266 [2006], affd 9 NY3d 836 [2007], cert denied 552 US 1257 [2008]). [read post]
