Search for: "State v. Corker"
Results 21 - 40
of 109
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 May 2022, 4:12 am
“The amended complaint states a cause of action for legal malpractice and the documents submitted do not utterly refute the factual allegations underlying that cause of action (see generally Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007]; Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]; Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. [read post]
18 Mar 2022, 5:19 am
Plaintiff’s contention that the motion court in the fee dispute would have awarded her predecision interest pursuant to CPLR 5001 is at best speculative (see Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442, 443 [2007]; see also Manufacturer’s & Traders Trust Co. v Reliance Ins. [read post]
4 Feb 2022, 4:40 am
The motion court applied the proper standard of care to defendants in this legal malpractice action (see Bassim v Halliday, 234 AD2d 628 [3d Dept 1996], appeal dismissed 89 NY2d 1001 [1997]; see generally Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007]). [read post]
29 Nov 2021, 4:32 am
In this connection we note that, “[d]amages 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] [internal quotation marks omitted]). [read post]
19 Nov 2021, 5:18 am
Even accepting plaintiff’s allegations as true, the complaint contains no nonconclusory allegations suggesting that any negligence by defendants in their handling of the medical malpractice trial was the “but for” cause of plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages (see Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007]). [read post]
18 Oct 2021, 3:44 am
Plaintiff’s alleged damages, as they relate to legal expenses defending the specific performance action, may be found to be proximately related to defendant’s negligent advice related to the issue of the contingency clause (see Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d at 443). [read post]
15 Mar 2021, 3:51 am
” ” Although plaintiff does not specifically allege that defendants “failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession” (see Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d at 442), she does allege that defendants were “negligent and [departed] from acceptable practice for attorneys engaged in the practice oflaw in the State of New York. [read post]
3 Mar 2021, 3:43 am
Under these circumstances, the complaint states a valid legal malpractice cause of action (see Arnav Indus., Inc. [read post]
5 Feb 2021, 3:07 am
Accordingly, the complaint failed to state a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice and the defendants were entitled to dismissal of that cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) (see Janker v Silver, Forrester & Lesser, P.C., 135 AD3d at 909; Benishai v Epstein, 116 AD3d at 728). [read post]
15 Oct 2020, 4:07 am
Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 N.Y.3d 438, 442-43 (2007); Exeter Law Group v. [read post]
3 Aug 2020, 4:00 am
In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession and that the attorney’s breach of this duty proximately caused the plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages (see Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007]; Von Duerring v Hession & Bekoff, 71 AD3d… [read post]
17 Jul 2020, 6:08 am
To state a cause of action for legal malpractice, the plaintiff must allege that “the defendant attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession,” and that the “breach of this duty proximately caused plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages” (Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007], quoting McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d… [read post]
11 May 2020, 5:41 am
Here, the government may still be liable for Theresa=s negligence under the FTCA (28 USC 1346 [b]; Haskin, 569 Fed Appx 12; Esgrance v United States, US Dist Ct, SD NY, 17 Civ 8352, Oetken, J., 2018; Jappa v PJR Const. [read post]
25 Apr 2020, 10:17 am
The content at issue here was provided by Nelson, in his capacity as a member of CGC, so CGC was both a service provider and a provider of the subject content, making the Act inapplicable. * Corker v. [read post]
18 Mar 2020, 6:12 am
In this case the Mitchell’s (Plaintiffs) filed a State Court lawsuit alleging violations of the Texas Insurance Code and the DTPA against IAT and Acceptance and conversion and trespass claims against Corker. [read post]
2 Mar 2020, 4:51 am
Plaintiff’s assertion that, had Arenas been better prepared, the jury would have returned a favorable verdict is pure speculation (Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 443 [2007]; Bookwood v Alston & Bird, LLC, 146 AD3d 662 [1st Dept 2017]. [read post]
26 Jun 2019, 4:14 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, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442, 835 NYS2d 534 [2007] [internal quotations and citations omitted]). [read post]
26 Jun 2019, 4:14 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, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442, 835 NYS2d 534 [2007] [internal quotations and citations omitted]). [read post]
14 Jun 2019, 10:10 am
In its 1983 decision in the matter of INS v. [read post]
29 Apr 2019, 4:40 am
The complaint further alleges that the defendant’s negligence proximately caused the plaintiffs to sustain actual and ascertainable damages in lost rent and in settling the action brought by the Hive, and thus, validly states a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice (see Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d at 443; Bua v Purcell & Ingrao, P.C., 99 AD3d 843, 847; Wolstencroft v Sassower, 124… [read post]
