Search for: "Day v. Mccoy" Results 41 - 60 of 179
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Jun 2012, 3:14 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Plaintiff's legal malpractice claim accrued no earlier than when the agreement was executed, which occurred on November 29, 2002, the date of the last signature on the agreement (see McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295 [2002]), and this action was commenced less than three years later. [read post]
7 Dec 2010, 12:39 pm by Deepak Gupta
In circumstances like McCoy’s, the new law requires the bank to provide 45 days’ notice of an APR increase. [read post]
11 Aug 2015, 5:52 am by SHG
In a twit yesterday, the holding in Mock v. [read post]
31 Oct 2022, 4:58 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
In the civil context, the claim “accrues when the malpractice is committed” (Ruggiero v Powers, 284 AD2d 593, 594 [3d Dept 2001], lv dismissed 97 NY2d 638 [2001]), “not at the time that the injury is discovered” (Lavelle-Tomko v Aswad & Ingraham, 191 AD3d 1142, 1143 [3d Dept 2021]; see McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301 [2002]). [read post]
24 May 2010, 4:54 pm
By Ryan McCoy and Catherine Ngo Several pieces of employment-related legislation are pending before the California Legislature this 2009-2010 term. [read post]
7 Feb 2018, 10:52 pm by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Reed and Ryan McCoy Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday morning in Dynamex Operations v. [read post]
22 Feb 2007, 8:05 am
Teresa Plaiss, as the County Auditor, Darlene McCoy, as Treasurer and Floyd County, Indiana (NFP) - "Pursuant to the rationale in Irwin Mortgage, the 180-day time limit began to run on April 28, 2003, and expired on October 27, 2003. [read post]
29 Sep 2021, 4:31 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Unger v Horowitz, 8 AD3d 62, 62 [1st Dept 2004]; see generally McCoy, 99 NY2d at 306 [2002]). [read post]
30 Sep 2024, 5:50 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
As held by the Court of Appeals, most legal malpractice claims accrue from the day an actionable injury occurs, even if the aggrieved party is ignorant of the wrong (McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295 [2002]; see also Flintlock Const. [read post]