Search for: "State v. Dach"
Results 41 - 60
of 65
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Jan 2007, 5:17 am
In NFL v. [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 2:36 am
Spiegel v Rowland, 552 US 1257; see Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442). [read post]
25 Apr 2011, 1:48 am
State, 57 AD3d 83, 866 N.Y.S.2d 711 [2nd Dept., 2008]). [read post]
22 Nov 2011, 3:03 am
While the DeCaro defendants contend that a rescission defense based on unilateral mistake would not have been successful in the underlying action for specific performance, specific performance may be denied based on unilateral mistake [*4]where the other party must have been aware of the mistake (see Da Silva v Musso, 53 NY2d 543, 548; Sheridan Drive-In v State of New York, 16 AD2d 400, 405; Harper, Inc. v City of Newburgh, 159 App Div 695, 696-697). [read post]
16 Jan 2007, 4:04 am
Dachs and Jonathan A. [read post]
3 Aug 2022, 4:37 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]
10 Apr 2019, 4:25 am
Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 N.Y.3d 438, 442 (2007). [read post]
28 Sep 2022, 2:06 am
” “Here, because Brooks plead guilty to certain tax evasion counts, those convictions were not abated by the Second Circuit in United States v Brooks (872 F3d 78, 87-88 [2d Cir 2017)). [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]
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]
7 Sep 2022, 5:32 am
The Second Circuit’s decision vacating his conviction was issued on September 20, 2017 (see United States v Brooks, 872 F3d 78, 96 [2d Cir 2017]) and this case was not commenced until September 2021. [read post]
2 Oct 2018, 4:14 am
” (Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 443 [2007] (quotations omitted).) [read post]
8 Mar 2018, 4:02 am
“To state a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must allege 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). [read post]
1 Dec 2011, 2:40 am
Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007]; Bilin v. [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]
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]
13 Sep 2012, 2:56 am
To recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff is required to show 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 attorney's breach of this duty caused the plaintiff to suffer actual and ascertainable damages (see Dombrowski v Bulson, 19 NY3d 347, 350; Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442; McCoy v Feinman, 99… [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]
23 May 2022, 3:58 am
In light of the discretion imparted by the consent form, “the plaintiff[s’] contention that the alleged malpractice resulted in legally cognizable damages is conclusory and speculative inasmuch as it is premised on decisions that were within the sole discretion of the [hospital]” (Bua v Purcell & Ingrao, P.C., 99 AD3d at 848; see AmBase Corp. v Davis Polk & Wardwell, 8 NY3d 428, 436; Dempster v Liotti, 86 AD3d at 180; Hashmi… [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]
