Search for: "Oppenheimer & Co. v. Oppenheim"
Results 21 - 40
of 75
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 May 2022, 4:53 am
Nor is it dispositive that plaintiffs and the Williams Defendants did not have a retainer agreement with respect to the engagement, given Stone’s explanation of the agreement he had with the Williams Defendants, the advice they gave him, the acts he undertook as part of the Williams Defendants’ engagement, and his reliance on their advice (see Pellegrino v Oppenheimer & Co. [read post]
19 May 2023, 3:51 am
The settlement of the wife’s elective share claim does not utterly refute plaintiffs’ allegations of proximate cause because the complaint supports the inference that the settlement was effectively compelled by defendants’ malpractice (see Bernstein v Oppenheim & Co., 160 AD2d 428, 429-430 [1st Dept 1990]). [read post]
25 Nov 2009, 7:10 am
(You can read Elisabeth Oppenheimer's preview of the case for Scotuswiki here.) [read post]
4 Sep 2009, 2:04 pm
(NFP).She has also held positions with Salomon Smith Barney and CIBC World Markets(formerly Oppenheimer & Co., Inc.). [read post]
28 Jul 2023, 6:05 am
Bernstein v Oppenheim & Co., 160 AD2d 428,430 (1st Dept. 1990). [read post]
20 Nov 2019, 4:27 am
A legal malpractice cause of action “is viable, despite settlement of the underlying action, if it is alleged that settlement of the action was effectively compelled by the mistakes of counsel” (Bernstein v Oppenheim & Co., 160 AD2d 428, 430 [1990]; see Maroulis v Sari M. [read post]
7 Apr 2010, 3:58 am
Oppenheim & Co., 160 A.D.2d 428, 554 N.Y.S.2d 487, 489-90 (N.Y. [read post]
21 Apr 2021, 4:00 am
“‘A claim for legal malpractice is viable, despite settlement of the underlying action, if it is alleged that settlement of the action was effectively compelled by the mistakes of counsel'” (Katsoris v Bodnar & Milone, LLP, 186 AD3d at 1505, quoting Bernstein v Oppenheim & Co., 160 AD2d 428, 430; see Gad v Sherman, 160 AD3d 622, 623). [read post]
23 Oct 2024, 5:11 am
“Defendants have not established their entitlement to summary judgment, as issues of fact remain about the reasonableness of defendants’ advice to settle before discovery and accept a FINRA bar (see Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007]; Bernstein v Oppenheim & Co., P.C., 160 AD2d 428, 430 [1st Dept 1990]). [read post]
12 Mar 2010, 2:34 am
DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORKAlternative Dispute Resolution Bank Cannot Be Compelled to Participate In US Airway's FINRA Arbitration Oppenheimer & Co. [read post]
6 Nov 2020, 2:24 pm
Oppenheim & Co., 160 A.D.2d 428, 430 (1st Dep’t 1990); see also Russo v. [read post]
26 Aug 2011, 2:28 am
Oppenheim & Co., 160 A.D.2d 428, 554 N.Y.S.2d 487, 489-90 (N.Y. [read post]
20 May 2010, 2:55 am
Oppenheim & Co., 160 A.D.2d 428, 554 N.Y.S.2d 487, 489-90 (N.Y. [read post]
4 Nov 2008, 10:07 am
Co. of Am. [read post]
16 Nov 2009, 3:45 am
Oppenheim & Co., P.C., 160 AD2d 428, 429-430 [1st Dept 1990]) (emphasis added). [read post]
12 Jan 2025, 5:35 am
Oppenheim & Co., 160 AD2d 428, 430[1st Dept 1990]). [read post]
6 Sep 2010, 6:32 pm
Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. [read post]
19 Apr 2018, 3:59 am
Contrary to purported ongoing representation by decedent’s family and advisors, the record evidence demonstrates the lack of a mutual understanding that defendant would continue to represent the estate in the Devine action, even if there was a continuation of a general professional relationship (see Pellegrino v Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. [read post]
4 Mar 2011, 3:13 am
Co. v Coleman, 305 AD2d 151 [2003]). [read post]
8 May 2012, 9:13 pm
Circuit Court of Appeal (PDF) More Blog Posts: Oppenheimer & Co. [read post]
