Search for: "Matter of McCoy v McCoy"
Results 41 - 60
of 193
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Apr 2012, 9:30 am
In Bland v. [read post]
26 Jan 2009, 11:30 am
The plaintiff acknowledged that all wages due him were paid before the complaint was filed, therefore, the Court of Appeal followed McCoy v. [read post]
3 May 2021, 8:43 am
Bringing to mind the infamous Hatfield-McCoy family feud, Concho Resources, Inc. v. [read post]
3 May 2021, 8:43 am
Bringing to mind the infamous Hatfield-McCoy family feud, Concho Resources, Inc. v. [read post]
15 May 2018, 3:53 am
The Supreme Court, in the 5-3 decision in McCoy v. [read post]
29 Sep 2021, 4:31 am
Unger v Horowitz, 8 AD3d 62, 62 [1st Dept 2004]; see generally McCoy, 99 NY2d at 306 [2002]). [read post]
21 Mar 2019, 4:12 am
Moreover, there was not a “mutual understanding of the need for further representation on the specific subject matter underlying the malpractice claim” (McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 306 [2002]). [read post]
10 Feb 2020, 4:36 am
However, “[t]he continuous representation doctrine serves to toll the statute of limitations and render timely an otherwise time-barred cause of action for legal malpractice, but ‘only where there is a mutual understanding of the need for further representation on the specific subject matter underlying the malpractice claim’ ” (King Tower Realty Corp. v G & G Funding Corp., 163 AD3d 541, 543 [2018], quoting McCoy v Feinman,… [read post]
19 Feb 2019, 4:18 am
However, “[t]he continuous representation doctrine serves to toll the statute of limitations and render timely an otherwise time-barred cause of action for legal malpractice, but only where there is a mutual understanding of the need for further representation on the specific subject matter underlying the malpractice claim'” (King Tower Realty Corp. v G & G Funding Corp., 163 AD3d 541, 543, quoting McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d at… [read post]
8 Jan 2009, 11:28 am
(See McCoy v. [read post]
8 Oct 2019, 6:31 am
McCoy, 117 A.D.3d 806, 808, 985 N.Y.S.2d 629). [read post]
23 Mar 2021, 8:42 am
” Only a few months later, the court did it again in McCoy v. [read post]
Argument preview: Must a card-issuer inform a card-holder of a rate change in response to a default?
18 Nov 2010, 11:12 am
Chase Bank USA v. [read post]
16 Mar 2012, 2:28 pm
McCoy, 131 S. [read post]
1 May 2008, 4:44 am
In support of their respective motions pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5), each of the defendants demonstrated, prima facie, that the time in which to sue had expired and that the complaint was time-barred as against them (see McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 785 N.E.2d 714, 755 N.Y.S.2d 693; Sabadie v Burke, 47 AD3d 913, 849 N.Y.S.2d 440; Matter of Schwartz, 44 AD3d 779, 843 N.Y.S.2d 403; Savarese v Shatz, 273 AD2d 219, 708 N.Y.S.2d 642; CPLR 214[6]). [read post]
22 Dec 2008, 3:47 pm
And in McCoy v. [read post]
22 Apr 2011, 1:58 am
To determine timeliness, we consider whether plaintiff’s complaint must, as a matter of law, be read to allege damages suffered so early as to render the claim time-barred” IDT Corp. v Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 12 NY3d 132,139 [2009]. [read post]
19 Jun 2018, 7:39 am
McCoy v. [read post]
28 Sep 2017, 4:20 am
There was no evidence that the parties contemplated further representation of the defendant by the plaintiff after the entry of the judgment of divorce in the divorce action (see McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 306). [read post]
12 Jul 2019, 4:21 am
(See McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301 [2002).) [read post]
