Search for: "Sauer v. Sauer"
Results 21 - 40
of 215
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Jan 2024, 9:01 pm
That argument is based on a line of civil cases establishing that presidents can’t be held liable via monetary damages for their official actions—more specifically, as the Supreme Court held in 1981 in Nixon v. [read post]
10 Jan 2024, 6:32 am
“To establish causation, a plaintiff must show that he or she would have prevailed in the underlying action or would not have incurred any damages, but for the lawyer’s negligence” (Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442; see Valley Ventures, LLC v Joseph J. [read post]
20 Dec 2023, 1:27 pm
Because the court’s ruling in that case, Fischer v. [read post]
18 Dec 2023, 3:25 am
Conklin, who represented plaintiff in an underlying action alleging accounting malpractice, among other things, were entitled to dismissal of the complaint given that plaintiff failed to allege that defendants were negligent or that they proximately caused any damages (see Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007]; Fielding v Kupferman, 65 AD3d 437, 442 [1st Dept 2009]). [read post]
30 Oct 2023, 5:01 am
In, Grace v. [read post]
13 Oct 2023, 5:04 am
Gopstein v Bellinson Law, LLC 2023 NY Slip Op 33476(U) October 4, 2023Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 159060/2022 Judge: Mary V. [read post]
18 Sep 2023, 4:41 am
The proposed amendment failed to sufficiently allege that “but for” the defendants’ alleged negligence, the plaintiffs “would not have incurred any damages” (Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442; see Nomura Asset Capital Corp. v Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, 26 NY3d 40, 49-50; McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301-302). [read post]
18 Aug 2023, 5:07 am
Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 N.Y.3d at 442, 835 N.Y.S.2d 534, 867 N.E.2d 385; Davis v. [read post]
20 Jun 2023, 4:00 am
The Criminal Complaint (full text) in United States v. [read post]
5 Jun 2023, 6:00 am
Federal law allows respondent to carry the SIG Sauer handgun while off-duty (Id.). [read post]
5 Jun 2023, 6:00 am
Federal law allows respondent to carry the SIG Sauer handgun while off-duty (Id.). [read post]
26 May 2023, 4:51 am
“Damages in a legal malpractice case are designed ‘to make the injured client whole’ ” (Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 443 [2007], quoting Campagnola v Mulholland, Minion & Roe, 76 NY2d 38, 42 [1990]), and defendants failed to meet their initial burden of establishing that decedent’s estate did not sustain any damages or that any damages were speculative (cf. [read post]
19 May 2023, 3:51 am
Plaintiffs’ legal malpractice cause of action should not have been dismissed under CPLR 3211 (a) (1) or CPLR 3211 (a) (7) (see generally Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007]). [read post]
18 Apr 2023, 6:49 pm
by Dennis Crouch NST Global, LLC, dba SB Tactical v. [read post]
31 Mar 2023, 4:26 am
Russo was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint and the cross claim of the AAF defendants against her (see Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007]). [read post]
23 Mar 2023, 2:11 pm
From today's Michigan Court of Appeals decision in People v. [read post]
13 Jan 2023, 5:55 am
In a legal malpractice action, a plaintiff must also prove that, but for the defendant’s negligence, the plaintiff would have been successful in the underlying action or not sustained the alleged damages (Rudolph v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442-443 [2007]). [read post]
12 Dec 2022, 3:54 am
Dismissal of the legal malpractice counterclaim was warranted because defendant failed to adequately plead proximate causation (see Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007]; Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]). [read post]
19 Oct 2022, 5:52 am
Underwriters v American Intl. [read post]
12 Oct 2022, 4:52 am
Supreme Court properly dismissed plaintiff’s legal malpractice cause of action in the original complaint because he failed to allege that “but for” defendant’s negligent conduct, he would have prevailed in the underlying action (Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP v Fashion Boutique of Short Hills, Inc., 10 AD3d 267, 272 [1st Dept 2004]; see Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007]). [read post]
