Search for: "Martinez v. Leon"
Results 41 - 60
of 125
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Apr 2020, 11:27 pm
Those documents “conclusively establish[] a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law” (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 88 [1994]; see CPLR 3211[a][1]). [read post]
9 Jul 2021, 3:08 am
” “Here, even accepting the facts alleged in the complaint, as amplified by the plaintiff’s affidavit, as true, and according the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d at 87), the plaintiff failed to plead specific factual allegations demonstrating that, but for the defendants’ alleged negligence, there would have been a more favorable outcome on his workers’ compensation claim (see Katsoris… [read post]
13 Feb 2018, 4:16 am
Upon construing the complaint liberally, and affording plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference (see generally Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]), we reject defendants’ contention that the breach of contract cause of action is duplicative of the accounting malpractice cause of action. [read post]
6 Jul 2011, 3:15 am
"Accepting the facts alleged in the second amended complaint as true, and according the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d at 87-88), the second amended complaint states a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice (see Aranki v Goldman & Assoc., LLP, 34 AD3d 510). [read post]
15 May 2024, 3:56 am
The court properly dismissed plaintiff’s claim pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) because he failed to state a cause of action (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87 [1994]). [read post]
27 Sep 2017, 4:14 am
These factual allegations, as supplemented by plaintiffs’ papers in opposition to defendant attorney’s dismissal motion, sufficiently alleged a legal malpractice claim (see generally Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]; see Brooks v Lewin, 21 AD3d 731, 734 [1st Dept 2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 713 [2006]; Escape Airports [USA], Inc. v Kent, Beatty & Gordon, LLP, 79 AD3d 437 [1st Dept 2010]). [read post]
11 Jun 2019, 4:14 am
” Given the vague, speculative, and conclusory nature of these allegations, plaintiffs failed to allege facts that “fit into any cognizable legal theory” (see Nonnon v City of New York, 9 NY3d 825, 827 [2007], quoting Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994] [internal quotation marks omitted]). [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]
17 May 2011, 12:39 pm
Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), and Malley v. [read post]
20 Apr 2023, 11:00 am
The court explains: Here, even if the defendant had been negligent in his representation of the plaintiff in connection with the underlying matters, viewing the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d at 87-88), it failed to plead specific factual allegations demonstrating that, but for the defendant’s alleged negligence, there would have been a more favorable outcome in the underlying matters or that the plaintiff would… [read post]
23 Nov 2022, 3:22 am
Here, in affidavits properly submitted to amplify the allegations in the complaint (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 88), the plaintiffs averred that Lau met with them to form WRE I and orally informed them that he was representing them, instructed them to wire funds to his escrow account, committed to certain conditions of disbursement of those funds, and advised that he would continue to represent them on matters related to the property to be acquired by WRE I. [read post]
7 Aug 2024, 4:42 am
“On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the complaint must be afforded a liberal construction, the facts therein must be accepted as true, and the plaintiff must be accorded the benefit of every possible favorable inference” (Angeli v Barket, 211 AD3d 896, 897; see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87). [read post]
21 Dec 2009, 9:18 am
Even accepting as true all of plaintiff's allegations and giving it the benefit of all favorable inferences ( see Leon v. [read post]
3 Feb 2010, 3:20 am
Retirement Trust v Brown, Raysman, Millstein, Felder & Steiner, 96 NY2d 300, 303; Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, [*2]87-88). [read post]
21 Mar 2012, 3:24 am
Put in a more elegant way, the Appellate Term decided Garg v Wigler 2012 NY Slip Op 50494(U) Decided on March 20, 2012 Appellate Term, First Department: "Accepting plaintiff's allegations as true, and according them the benefit of every favorable inference, as we must in the context of a motion to dismiss on the pleadings (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]), we find the complaint, as amplified by plaintiff's… [read post]
10 Jul 2012, 5:40 am
Even assuming the truth of the allegations in the complaint (see generally Leon v. [read post]
22 Jan 2018, 4:08 am
Affording the complaint a liberal construction, accepting the facts alleged therein as true, and according DeMartino the benefit of every possible favorable inference (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]), the complaint fails to plead specific facts from which it can be inferred that [*2]DeMartino was in an attorney-client or fiduciary relationship, privity, or a relationship that otherwise closely resembles privity with the defendants, who were retained to… [read post]
25 Sep 2019, 4:25 am
Martinez, 84 NY2d 83 [1994]). [read post]
19 Jul 2024, 4:47 am
“On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the complaint must be afforded a liberal construction, the facts therein must be accepted as true, and the plaintiff must be accorded the benefit of every possible favorable inference” (Angeli v Barket, 211 AD3d 896, 897 [2022]; see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87 [1994]). [read post]
19 Aug 2022, 4:42 am
” “Here, accepting all facts as alleged in the amended complaint to be true and according the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88), the amended complaint failed to state a legal malpractice cause of action. [read post]
